In science, you need to be able to reproduce results.

[Bonobo]

Isn't this true?

So where is the reproduction of the collapse that has been so well explained?

Simple question. Right?

[OnTheOtherHand]

1. reproduction?

Like, why don't we build some more towers and see if we can replicate the collapses?

Many opponents of science claim that any past event, being inherently unrepeatable, cannot be reliably addressed by science. Using this sort of argument, they attempt to cast doubt on fields from geology to evolutionary biology. You can see this argument used by creationist organizations, which suggests there are two types of science: "Operational science involves discovering how things operate in today’s Creation -- repeatable and observable phenomena in the present. This is the science of Newton. However, origins science deals with the origin of things in the past -- unique, unrepeatable, unobservable events." They also make it clear that evolution is clearly part of origins science, stating, "In contrast, evolution is a speculation about the unobservable and unrepeatable past."

... Attempting to discredit science based on natural experiments, however, would discard much of current astronomy, geology, and biology -- in short, it would severely limit what is subject to scientific analysis.

In the end, it appears that reproducibility's links to tentativeness make it subject to the same lack of understanding by a public that typically expects its scientific results to be concrete and absolute. As with that topic, the only apparent remedy is a better education in the sciences.

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2006/10/5744.ars

It's a pretty interesting article. However, I don't know whether it really addresses your question, because I'm not sure what you are really asking.

[rollingrock]

5. We're not talking about origin science

you do realize that is what the article is referring to, don't you?

[OnTheOtherHand]

6. you may need to read more closely

Yes, it is referring to origins science -- but not only to origins science.

[rollingrock]

7. I have

I noted this part of the article in particular,

'In contrast to a number of other questions, in the case of reproducibility, the engineers were far more stringent than the scientists. One materials scientist noted that, "In the applied end, we live and die by reproducibility." There's a simple reason for this, as one engineer indicated, "I now determine 100 million dollar decisions, so reproducibility is much more critical." More than one engineer noted that reproducibility in this field may still have a statistical component; a 95 percent confidence level in generating a usable product was deemed sufficient in some contexts. Another noted that the ever-shrinking wire size in modern electronics was ratcheting up the noise engineers had to deal with.'

The mechanism for the physical 'collapses' of the WTC buildings would fall into the category of applied sciences. So surely, there has to be some sort of experiment that could be done, for example, to support or prove the notion that structural steel loses its integrity after being on fire for one or two hours?

[OnTheOtherHand]

8. OK, next you may need to read the NIST report more closely

It isn't as if you're on completely novel terrain here.

[rollingrock]

9. I've done that too, I'm afraid

have you? if so, can you describe the experiments NIST conducted, if any, in regard to the structural failure of the towers and building 7? because I didn't see anything in there myself, or know anyone that has.

[OnTheOtherHand]

11. excuse me, you seem very confused

What would you construe as an experiment "in regard to the structural failure of the towers"? You aren't making much sense.

[rollingrock]

13. You don't know what an experiment is?

ex⋅per⋅i⋅ment

–noun
1. a test, trial, or tentative procedure; an act or operation for the purpose of discovering something unknown or of testing a principle, supposition, etc.: a chemical experiment; a teaching experiment; an experiment in living.
2. the conducting of such operations; experimentation: a product that is the result of long experiment.



it's a central part of the scientific process. unlike creationism or voodoo, for example.

[OnTheOtherHand]

14. I'm familiar with experiments

and I'm familiar with experiments described in the NIST report. You aren't?

[rollingrock]

15. They didn't conduct tests

on the dust, for example, nor did they bother to conduct tests for explosive residue. how could an investigation ignore such physical evidence? the hundreds of tons of dust that blew everywhere and covered the whole of Manhattan in a massive dust cloud? that's like if you're the police and you ignore the blood spattered everywhere at the scene of a very bloody murder. you can't just ignore physical evidence like that. so what kind of testing did they do, if any? We may never know the answer to that question, but whatever the NIST people did to reach their very fishy conclusions is more like voodoo than science.

[OnTheOtherHand]

16. your question is willfully ignorant

You claim to have read the NIST report, so you should already know what kind of testing they did. To me it seems pertinent to the question you posed in post #7. (Come to think of it, maybe you need to read your own posts more carefully, as well.)

Your question about explosive residue has been addressed many times, so that too seems willfully ignorant. I don't really understand why anyone would choose to bring willful ignorance to this subject. It dismays me.

[rollingrock]

17. Assertions vs facts

do you realize that there is a difference? because your post has plenty of the former, but none of the latter. try again.

[OnTheOtherHand]

19. you SHOULDN'T know what's in the NIST report?

If that's the level on which you intend to discuss the tragic events of 9/11, I really have no interest in trying again. Thanks just the same.

[rollingrock]

105. When you're in a hole, it's best to stop digging

just some friendly advice.

[OnTheOtherHand]

107. thanks for your concern, I guess

but I suspect your time would be better spent establishing and demonstrating some grasp of the NIST investigation.

[rollingrock]

108. That's rich

coming from someone who has no clue about their own article they just copy and pasted from. lol.

[OnTheOtherHand]

112. sez you

Hey, if trash talk is its own reward, you're doing great.

[SDuderstadt]

110. I nominate this post for...

the "unintentional irony of the day" award.

[OnTheOtherHand]

111. I thought it was just me.... n/t

[LARED]

24. Are you suggesting

that experiments are needed to establish that structural steel loses its integrity after being on fire for one or two hours?

Just is case you are unaware the relationship between the strength of steel and it's temperature has been established for probably 100 years.

[Flatulo]

2. Hmmm... I bet it would be tough to reproduce the Big Bang.

Does this mean the universe doesn't exist?

[rollingrock]

3. The big bang is a theory

it has never been established to be a fact.

[SDuderstadt]

4. Omigod....are you a Big Bang denier, too...

dude?

[hack89]

10. Do you understand the scientific process?

Do you know what a theory actually is?

[rollingrock]

12. The big bang theory could be true

I'm not saying that it is or isn't, just that it is unproven. I think its impossible to prove one event that supposedly took place billions of years ago. unlike evolution or global warming, which is an ongoing process and still taking place today. the evidence for evolution and global warming is all around us because its still ahppening, so is much easier to observe and prove then something like the big bang.

[HannibalCards]

18. I believe in Global warming

Can you reproduce it to prove the theory?

[Bonobo]

20. You can certainly model it.

And despite the fact that the collapse mechanism wouldn't be as complex as modeling the entire world's climate through 100,000 or so years, I have not seen an accurate model of the collapse of the towers, let alone a physical model that could be made to act that way.

Doesn't seem like an impossible thing to try for.

Create an accurate scale model. Run it through a few thousand tests to see if you can duplicate a collapse. Would be interesting, no? I wonder why it hasn't been done.

[Bolo Boffin]

21. So you like the modeling of the collapse done for 7, right? n/t

[Bonobo]

22. Are you being coy? nt

[Bolo Boffin]

23. You seem to be very worked up about modeling the towers.

I'm asking you a simple question - what's your take on the modeling of 7's collapse done by NIST?

Because that's how we figure out whether you're REALLY worried about modeling of the towers or you're just working a line.

ETA: Not answering the question when it was first asked, and instead questioning the motivation of the asker? That's not evidence for the former option...

[OnTheOtherHand]

25. I suspect bonobo still doesn't see the relevance of the question

I'm not snarking. I just sort of have the impression that bonobo bails out pretty quickly on technical discussions. And that has consequences.

[Bonobo]

27. It's true. I have to bail on those unfortunately.

But not because I am being dishonest in any way. I just can't keep up with you guys and I admit it.

[OnTheOtherHand]

28. here's the thing

We all have our limits about how far we can go in the techie stuff, and I try to be candid about mine. Just FYI, sometimes when we seem to be dismissing someone out of hand, either we're remembering a previous discussion, or we're outright making points that you may not be picking up on.

And we would probably do well to bear in mind that whatever happened for us in the 11th round of a back-and-forth with (insert name here) probably didn't happen for you.

ETA: Oh, try to hang in and get the flavor of some of those discussions -- not just the tone, but what is being debated -- even when you can't follow the details.

[Bonobo]

30. Thank you, OTOH.

I do try my best to follow.

Right now I am struggling to understand jolts and all that business. Tony claims no jolt exists because there was no deceleration and you guys claim that he just didn't see the mini-jolts which are demonstrated by the 'changes' in the rate of acceleration. Right?

Pretty hard for a layman. Maybe someone could explain this issue for me in an easy manner.

[OnTheOtherHand]

47. seems sort of like you're hijacking your own thread

If you have a question about what people are saying, why not ask it in context?

I think this is basically right, although "jolt" hasn't seemed terribly useful as an analytical term so far (I can't wade into that right now*). I'd add that I don't see that Tony has an alternative explanation that accounts for the observables.

*ETA: Using a technical definition of jolt, I think your version makes Tony wrong by definition. Just as an example of how the semantics can get hairy.

[Bonobo]

26. I think I remember discussing the WT7 model with you previously.

And if I recall correctly, that conversation ends with you saying that even though the WT7 model LOOKS wrong, it is only because the outer perimeter walls are CONCEALING the inward collapse of the whole structure.

Let me restate for clarity. The WT7 model looks wrong. But when called on the fact that the model doesn't fall in the way that it appears to have fallen, you come back with some semi-lame retort about how the actual collapse is hidden by the outer walls.
Then you make these claims about how the fall of WT7 is actually 17 seconds as opposed to the much more visible freefall-ish speed.

I know you are comfortable with that subject and so you want to steer it back there, but I am asking about the towers.

Why no physical model? Can you answer that simply please?

[rollingrock]

29. Their computer model is bogus

NIST doesn't provide the input data for their computer model, which means the simulation cannot be verified by independent parties. the input data has to be available for peer review, or the computer model on which it is based can't be valid. it's just a fancy cartoon. a computer simulation is only as good as the input data. you can program it to whatever you want. garbage in, garbage out.


for example, to make the pancake model work, Nova conveniently removed all the perimeter columns and simply ignored the core columns. I guess the buildings were held up by pixie dust and Elmer's glue? laughable.


www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdQh18kvpRU

[AZCat]

55. A computer model isn't valid if the input data is not available for peer review?

Since when?

[Bonobo]

56. Well it would make the model "unverifiable", wouldn't it? nt

[AZCat]

58. Not necessarily.

I would prefer that any verification not be based on the same set of inputs - it reduces the possibility of error propagation. It's better if each group populates its data set independently.

[Realityhack]

68. And this is the point where...

by no fault of their own I bet we have lost some people.
Unfortunately they may or may not know they are lost.

[Bonobo]

69. I am not lost there, but I do disagree.

The error propagation point is well taken, but I still think that without providing the numbers and data used for a model, one could not possible review the model for accuracy.
It seems obvious.

[AZCat]

71. We're just going to have to disagree then.

I've done plenty of modeling, and it's a bad idea to copy someone else's data and just plug it into your model. Much better to collect the data on your own, then you can check one model against the other.

By the way - NIST did provide their models. The SAP2000 model is available, and you (or anyone else) can examine it if you wish.

[Bonobo]

73. Maybe I wasn't clear enough?

What I meant about supplying the data was not so that you could plug it from one model into another, but rather to eliminate errors resulting from wrong data.

Example: You put in a tensile strength of XXXX lbs/square inch or a length of XXX meters -and it turns out to be wrong data. If that data were not made public, no one could check to see if the correct numbers were being used. Does that make better sense?

[AZCat]

75. Gotcha. That information we DO have.

The NIST Report contains pretty much all that information. The NIST basically admits they had to make educated guesses about some numbers, but that's not unusual for engineering analyses. See, for example, the discussion of time dependent material properties at elevated temperatures and stresses (I don't remember which report it is in, unfortunately). In that case there just wasn't any research NIST could reference, so they had to fill in the blanks on their own.

[Realityhack]

92. I hope AZCat's excellent explanation helped you...

figure out where we are. You *were* lost, I hope you no longer are.

I think this serves as an excellent example of what I was getting at. Certain things are very well understood by highly trained groups of people. The vast majority of engineers/physicists/martial scientists/etc. don't need to have the idea of dynamic similitude and the associated problems with scale modeling explained to them. It is already a 'given' part of the discussion that they don't need to voice.
The same goes for understanding the role of input data in a simulation.
When we as laymen get involved we can easily miss these 'given' items and end up thinking that we know WTF is going on when in fact we are missing entire concepts that are fundamental to understanding the issue.

This is why we have certified engineers and physicists etc. etc. do accident analysis etc. rather than just grabbing a bunch of interested laymen and hoping for the best. It is also why the engineering community comes to different conclusions about engineering reports aimed at engineers than the CTer community. And why CTer 'analysis' is so often outright laughed at by people who know what they are doing.

[rollingrock]

86. Science 101

in the applied sciences, results must be reproduceable and verifiable. that can't happen when the data isn't available. every high school student knows that. you must have been absent that day. or perhaps you were home-schooled by creationists? is there any possible valid reason for keeping the data a secret? if so, can you explain what that could possibly be?



'In contrast to a number of other questions, in the case of reproducibility, the engineers were far more stringent than the scientists. One materials scientist noted that, "In the applied end, we live and die by reproducibility." There's a simple reason for this, as one engineer indicated, "I now determine 100 million dollar decisions, so reproducibility is much more critical." More than one engineer noted that reproducibility in this field may still have a statistical component; a 95 percent confidence level in generating a usable product was deemed sufficient in some contexts. Another noted that the ever-shrinking wire size in modern electronics was ratcheting up the noise engineers had to deal with.'

-from OTOH's article

[AZCat]

87. Thanks for missing the entire subthread.

Go back, read the discussion, and maybe you'll learn something.

[rollingrock]

88. Do you need some remedial high school science?

because your subthread was a load of crap. the purpose of REPRODUCIBILITY in science is to verify the results with the data used in the original experiment (in this case, the experiment refers to NIST's experiment using a computer model). that isn't possible if the data they used for the experiment is not available. if an experiment CANNOT be reproduced, it is not a valid experiment. comprende? it is junk, voodoo science.

[AZCat]

89. Very funny.

Your ignorance is always amusing. Fortunately, I have a bit more than high school science to rely on, and can comfortably say you are mis-applying the concept of reproducibility.

[SDuderstadt]

90. You should have seen it the time RR spent most of the day babbling about...

something being redundant when he actually meant oxymoronic. I'm not sure he understands the difference.

[rollingrock]

104. Sorry to break it to you

but voodoo is not a legitimate branch of science.

[AZCat]

109. Then I shouldn't have to worry.

I practice engineering.

[Flatulo]

33. Dynamic similitude

I'm sure this has been discussed here before, but to build a correct scale model of a structure, you cannot just make everything 1/2 or 1/4 the original size. This is because many important parameters that you would care about do not scale linearly with size.

For example, the deflection of a beam in bending is inversely related to its sectional height cubed. If you simply halve the height of a beam, you actually make it 8X less stiff.

There is no way around this.

The end result of this is that a true dynamically scaled model would not look very much like the WTC. Knowing this, how many people do you think would accept the results?

[Bonobo]

34. I don't remember such a discussion but I certainly am interested.

I would like to know more about this...thank you.

[AZCat]

52. That's not the only problem.

Nonlinearity can be a real bitch, too.

[Bonobo]

53. Wind-tunnels are built, for example, in order to recreate conditions...

Is it not possible to use "techniques" to compensate?

[AZCat]

54. Sort of.

Usually you can change a model to mimic at least one parameter, but when you want to look at more than one parameter it can become difficult (if not impossible) because they might scale differently. This is why computer models have become popular, because they can simulate full-scale events (although computer modeling has its own set of problems).

[Bonobo]

57. But one parameter at a time should be sufficient if we limit it to answering one issue anyway.

So couldn't the modeling, for example, of the way the perimeter walls "peeled away" be easily demonstratable -just as one example (and there are many ways this could be sliced up, I suppose).

[AZCat]

59. It's not quite that simple.

Dynamic physical models are particularly hard because two important qualities - volume and area - scale differently (as the cube and square of the length, respectively). This means parameters dependent on those two qualities (like force per unit area, also known as stress) will not be accurately represented in a scale model.

[Bonobo]

60. Understood.

But I guess what I am trying to say is that since reproducibility IS an important concept in determining whether or not a theory is valid, it should be dealt with -even if difficult.

One could use different materials, for example, while retaining the same engineering specs as the towers. One could try over and over again (don't worry, I wouldn't disqualify you if it didn't work right the first 999 times!).

But, if you found it ultimately impossible to reproduce the event (again, I will liken this to Mythbuster 'science'), couldn't one begin to reasonably doubt that it was the correct theory?

[AZCat]

61. It is very important, but with a caveat.

A few years ago we discovered complex systems and it blew reproducibility out of the water, because while some systems are deterministic, they are not reproducible. I'm at work right now so I can't go into detail, but I'll try to get back to this tonight.

[Bonobo]

62. I am interested, but I would prefer a slightly more direct answer to the above question please. nt

[AZCat]

63. Let me get back to you later.

I have a 10:00 AM meeting I have to go to. Will you take a rain check?

[Bonobo]

64. Of course. Thanks. nt

[AZCat]

70. Here is a better answer.

Assuming you could develop a model that would have the requisite similitude, it would be possible to set up a simulation of the event. For linear or quasi-linear systems, this can be a pretty accurate predictor of system behavior, and reproducing results is not difficult. But if the system is nonlinear, it can actually be impossible to reproduce a particular sequence of events, because the behavior can change significantly with small changes to the inputs. We began to realize this when people began setting up computer models of certain systems, like weather systems (see, for example, the Lorenz attractor), because slight changes in the initial conditions would create totally different outcomes. Some very smart guys figured out this was because the sets of equations governing the behavior of the systems were nonlinear. So even though you might have a deterministic system (in other words - the result could always be repeated if the same set of inputs were provided) you might not have one that can be used as an effective predictor (or reproducer) of system behavior.

This doesn't rule out multiple simulations using slightly different sets of data. That's not unusual - in fact, there are a number of techniques (see, for example, the Monte Carlo method) used when simulating these types of systems. It's not always feasible for a particular project because the computing time required to perform multiple simulations can become prohibitive. It can also be difficult to do if the simulation isn't totally automated (like the NIST's WTC Tower work). But if a large enough set of simulations is run, you can sort of "map" the output of the system and come up with a behavior envelope, although it doesn't always work great with nonlinear systems because the results can be pretty spread out. This doesn't mean that a particular outcome will necessarily fall within the behavior envelope, so it isn't an effective way for ruling out a particular sequence of events. All you can do is find out if that particular outcome is likely, given a range of inputs.

I hope this helps explain it a bit more. I know it can be difficult for non-technical people, so ask questions if you need something clarified.

[Bonobo]

72. Thank you very much. I DO have a question and I hope it is a good one.

You describe nonlinear systems and I understand.

But with regards to the Twin Towers, does the fact that they both fell (2 out of 2) suggest that, in fact, it is NOT a nonlinear system? I mean... if one small variable tends to create very different outcomes, doesn't the fact that both fell in the same way suggest that this is a LINEAR system that could be modeled?

I hope you say the answer is yes or I may just need a replacement in my logic circuit.

[AZCat]

74. It's a good question, given the context.

We know the collapses of the WTC Towers were nonlinear systems because the math that describes their behavior is nonlinear, but that doesn't mean that particular outcomes aren't likely. Most nonlinear systems have stable (or quasi-stable) regions, where the results are fairly predictable and may respond quasi-linearly with respect to changes in inputs. Fluid dynamics is like this - for example, laminar flow in pipes is pretty linear (small changes in velocity create small changes in frictional losses) whereas turbulent flow is not. That's why I would have liked NIST to have run a set of simulations of the collapse initiation, because I think it would have given a better feel for likely behavior (which is really what engineers want to know - we don't design for every possible outcome).

[Bonobo]

76. Thanks, AZCat.

That's all for now.

I really appreciate your explanation.

[AZCat]

77. You're welcome.

I know I don't have all the answers, but sometimes I can help if you have questions.

[SDuderstadt]

78. Do you, by any chance, know who played "Lumpy" on...

"Leave it to Beaver"?

[AZCat]

79. Not without cheating.

I grew up without a television, so I'm pretty weak at cultural trivia.

[Bonobo]

80. Frank Bank...and you want to hear something funny?

My dear twin brother.... I just called him and woke him from sleep unfortunately. He is so good at trivia so I thought I would test him.

Even though I woke him from a deep sleep, he knew it! It was the first thing I said to him: "Hey, man, who played Lumpy on Leave it to Beaver?", I said?

Without hesitation, he said "Frank Bank". I have not checked yet, but I also know I don't need to.

Yes, my twin brother is Rainman. I think it is why I have certain memory deficits. Growing up as his twin, he always kept the info memorized. There was no Wikipedia back then, so it was all the more vital and amazing.

I just wanted to share that.

[SDuderstadt]

81. Who played Lumpy on "Leave it to Beaver" is....

my "one-size-fits-all" question. It makes no difference what context. So, when i was taking an aerial tram ride with relatives and the tram operator finished his little spiel, then asked, "Are there any questions?", that's what I chimed in with.

[Bonobo]

82. And did you ever meet anyone, like my bro, that could answer off the top of their head? nt

[SDuderstadt]

83. Yeah, but they'd always get it wrong...

I didn't have the heart to tell them.

[Bonobo]

84. I'm not sure if my brother is blessed or cursed with that memory.

He is a happy guy though. I spent all my memory learning Japanese, I think. No space left.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Bank

[AZCat]

85. That's awesome. n/t

[jberryhill]

31. So, Bonobo...

Am I to presume you were the result of sex between your parents?

Why or why not?

My parents had sex at least four times, and got a different result each time.

How about yours?

[Bonobo]

So I take it you disagree with the premise then.

The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

[jberryhill]

35. I thought it was a simple enough question...

Did your parents have any children that lived?

[Bonobo]

36. Well my brother died recently, so thanks very much for that.

He died last year, like my dad.

My Mom is also quite sick so I really, really appreciate you making this so personal.

[jberryhill]

37. I'm not impressed

Nice dodge of the original question.

Put your emotions aside, Mr. Science.

Were you the product of sexual intercourse between your parents, and can the result be reproduced?

[Bonobo]

38. You asked me if my parents had any children that lived.

I told you I have had many deaths in my family,

I can't imagine what the fuck is wrong with you, but if you keep this up, you will be asking for trouble.

[SDuderstadt]

39. Bonobo...

JB had no way of knowing the tragedy in your family and his question was entirely in line with the reasoning he was trying to get you to see. I am sorry for your loss, but it's clear that Berryhill meant nothing by it. It seems to me that you spend a lot of time trying to pick fights.

[Bonobo]

40. Tell me what I did to make any of this personal please.

[SDuderstadt]

42. Dude...

he's not trying to make it personal. You're still trying to pick a fight when all berryhill is guilty of is unknowing bad timing. Knock it off.

[Bonobo]

43. Fine, I am done. But I don't see why it got nasty.

What the fuck is the snark for?

I swear, I don't fucking like it and I don't see why adults can't be a little more grown up when discussing things.

[SDuderstadt]

44. Dude...

the conversation was in line with your OP. Berryhill was citing an example by asking if "your parents had any children who lived". He was making a point relevant to the OP and the line of questioning. Because of your personal tragedy, you interpreted in a manner that Berryhill could not possibly have meant. Seriously, dude...quit trying to pick a fight where there isn't one.

[Bonobo]

45. I told him to back off with my first response.

He responded with "I am not impressed, Mr. Science."

And you accuse ME of picking a fight.

My entire post has been one careful NOT to pick fights.

I am a polite person who will return kindness with kindness, respect with respect, and a slap for a slap.

Now please back off, man. OK? And please do not call me 'Dude" again. I know what you mean by that. I have seen it all through the dungeon./

[SDuderstadt]

46. I'll call you dude if I want to....

You need to learn to drop things sometimes. I'm saying this as a friend. People here seem to me to be extremely patient with you, yet you manage to turn things adversarial, whether you know it or not.

Seriously, Bonobo...let it go, dude.

[icee2]

91. It's used when addressing those whose views differ from Gov't versions

"And please do not call me 'Dude" again. I know what you mean by that. I have seen it all through the dungeon".

[icee2]

93. I might be wrong about the use of "Dude"

If so, I apologize to "sduderstadt". On thinking about it, I realize it may be something he uses indiscriminately.

[SDuderstadt]

94. Actually, where you're really wrong is believing anyone...

really cares about your silly "truther" babbling.

[icee2]

95. Thanks for demonstrating your personal attention & concern.. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

96. No problem....

aren't you guys working on a major case right now? Like finding actual evidence for your goofy theories?

[icee2]

97. The only goofy theory is the OCT. I don't support it. Do you? n/t

[SDuderstadt]

98. Your little black "OCT" dress won't work here...

dude. You might as well take it off.

[icee2]

99. No. YOU are the OCTer, not me. It's YOUR dress, dude. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

100. Actually, no it's not...

it's a "truther" invention and it's dragged out at every opportunity as a "one-size-fits-all" rhetorical device so you can debate an empty chair. You have no idea what the fuck I believe or why.

I might be able to make this easier for you. Are you a "no-planer"?

[icee2]

101. You need a new act, dude. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

102. After you, dude...

I asked a simple question...are you a "no-planer"? It's a yes or no question, dude.

[jberryhill]

49. Ask Stanley Kubrick Then...

It's a line from Full Metal Jacket

http://www.rateitall.com/i-723841-did-your-parents-have-any-children-that-lived.aspx

Now get over yourself and answer my original question.

[Bonobo]

41. Here is what I posted before he made that nasty personal remark. Not very personal is it?

The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

[jberryhill]

48. Are you going to answer my question or not?

Or are you going to keep pretending that an old movie line was intended as a personal remark?

[Bonobo]

50. Your point is obvious. However if the collapses were so unique (as I am), then...

Why and how did both towers fall in essentially the same manner with different specific physical damage.

In your example, wouldn't that be somewhat akin to 2 different couples having the same baby?

But, even more importantly, if it happened twice (actually 3 times if we throw in WT7) shouldn't it be possible to create a physical model and recreate it under the right conditions? (especially if we allow the recreation to be tried thousands of time or more -ala Mythbusters)

[HannibalCards]

51. First

The WTC 1 and 2 were similarly constructed, similarly damaged and fell in similar fashions. As siblings resemble each other but are not exact duplicates.
Second, WTC 7 was differently constructed, differently damaged and fell differently.

Shouldn't it be possible to create a physical model and recreate it under the right conditions? No, see reply number 33.

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our fourth quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[defendandprotect]

65. Lots of cheating goes on in science ... in the past and currently . . . and in between --

However, most people wouldn't start with blowing up skyscrapers --

so simulations are where it's at --

and that's where common sense takes a holiday.

[chrisa]

66. That's a logical fallacy.

The burden of proof is on the CTers. The burden of proof is not on the people who have already done the analysis (where as, CTers have analyzed nothing but grainy footage, and parroting half-truths to make a fictional story).

[Bonobo]

67. I would think 'reasonable doubt' would be sufficient to warrant some more study.

But that isn't really the point of this OP.

Thanks for your response though.

PS> I don't see the logical fallacy.

[Tony Szamboti]

103. A model could be built at Berkeley

The University of California at Berkeley has a lab where they build dynamically similar models of real structures for earthquake response testing.

http://nees.berkeley.edu/

If there was the will to do so a model could easily be built to show whether the collapses of the towers were reproducible.

Concerning the collapse of WTC 1, with which I am most familiar:

Right off the bat there would be problems since the NIST had to add artificial loads to cause the alleged bowing of the south wall, as their computer model did not generate the bowing even after they removed the transverse trusses from the floor support system.

Even if you removed the entire south wall it is highly unlikely that there would be an initiation as the NIST analysis shows that the load increase on the remaining walls is far too low to cause them to collapse.

The model would probably only serve one useful purpose, which would be to detach a portion of it and drop it through one story to see if the lower structure completely collapses. My prediction is it would not and that is why you have not seen a model built and tested.

I would even bet that you could drop it from two or three stories up and it still wouldn't cause a full progressive collapse, and in these cases as well as in a one story drop I would bet a velocity loss due to an impulsive load would be plenty evident and measureable.

[Realityhack]

106. See post #33

You clearly have no clue what you are talking about. Leave science and engineering to scientists and engineers.