Surprise-- the NIST WTC7 collapse simulation is a joke

[spooked911]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC0U36QWWAA

[zappaman]

1. I didn't find it funny

Guess we have different senses of humor.

[SDuderstadt]

2. I found the last word in Spooked's subject line to be...

unintentionally ironic, since nearly everyone here regards him as one.

Let's hope that this doesn't trigger another "meltdown".

[William Seger]

3. I'm pretty sure you know...

... that the NIST simulation did not include the exterior "curtain walls," so it also didn't model the rigidity of those walls. That's because the model was only intended to study the behavior of the floors and load-bearing structure. Which means there is no reason to expect the exterior columns of the model to behave like the actual curtain walls in the videos. Which means your video is indeed a joke.

[BeFree]

8. Eh?

You are saying the exterior columns were not load-bearing? Really?

Seger claims:
""..only intended to study the behavior of the floors and load-bearing structure. Which means there is no reason to expect the exterior columns..""

[Bolo Boffin]

9. That's not what Seger was saying at all. Try again. n/t

[BeFree]

12. Of course

Everyone knows that the exterior was load bearing, so I just wanted to make sure Seger was like everyone.

[Bolo Boffin]

13. Nothing Seger said gave the idea that the exterior columns weren't load bearing.

There was no rational need for you to "make sure Seger was like everyone." Your failure to understand what he said isn't his problem.

[BeFree]

14. Bwahahaha!!

Thanks for the laugh. Where ya been? Haven't had a good laugh like that in a while.

[zappaman]

15. heh

You are a great comedian!
Is there anything you understand about 9/11?

[BeFree]

21. Understand? Oh yeah

The subject draws in a bunch of kooks that don't know load bearing from a hole in the ground.

And who just like to flick around stupid comments meant to distract the discussion.

[Bolo Boffin]

19. Here's an exercise for you once you've calmed down.

Point out any visible exterior columns in any WTC 7 collapse video you have. Thanks in advance.

[OnTheOtherHand]

16. "the exterior"?

Perhaps you could walk us through the meaning of "curtain wall." Just to make sure that you're like everyone, y'know.

[BeFree]

17. so

You don't know what load-bearing means?

Tell us what you think load-bearing means.

Or we'll just wait for Seger to explain himself.

[OnTheOtherHand]

18. grunt

If you know what "curtain wall" means, then you should have no trouble understanding what Seger meant.

[BeFree]

20. Curtains?

Curtains hang. Curtains are supported from above. Curtains bear no load, they are a load.

[Bolo Boffin]

22. "flick around stupid comments meant to distract the discussion"

Please stop.

[William Seger]

24. Good, now reread what I said.

Maybe you'll get it this pass.

[BeFree]

28. eh?

You claim:
""the NIST simulation did not include the exterior "curtain walls," so it also didn't model the rigidity of those walls.""

You think the exterior walls were curtain walls?

[William Seger]

29. Well, that's some improvement

You gleaned at least that much from what I wrote. One more pass might do it.

[zappaman]

30. baby steps...

baby steps

[spooked911]

11. why would they put out something that is so obviously wrong?

they could have left out the outer walls from their video then, instead of showing them bending every which way

[Bolo Boffin]

23. Because your level of personal incredulity is not a standard they feel worth meeting, spooked. n/t

[spooked911]

25. it is not just MY "personal incredulity"

OKAY???

Obviously it is a joke to many people.

[SDuderstadt]

26. I'll correct your post for you...

Okay???

Obviously, I am a joke to many people.


There. Now it's fixed.

[William Seger]

27. The videos of their model DON'T show any walls

Take another look: it's just columns "bending every which way." There is no reason to expect the exterior columns in the real building, with rigid curtain walls attached, to behave like that. Curtain walls don't carry gravity loads, but they are not flimsy; they need to be rigid and sturdy enough to carry a lot of wind load to the floors and columns without caving in.

And I can't say I care about what you find "obviously wrong" with the model. I'm still waiting for Richard Gage's "over 1300 engineers and architects" to come up with a single valid technical reason for believing the highly implausible "controlled demolition" hypothesis.

[spooked911]

31. assuming they didn't model in the curtain wall, as you say, the model is even more bogus

It is not like the "curtain wall" wouldn't affect the behavior of the inner columns-- obviously it would, thus rendering the model meaningless. I was assuming the outer columns they show were representing the outer wall.

Additionally, there is NOTHING implausible about controlled demolition. It actually explains things that happened on 9/11 very well, thank you very much.

[SDuderstadt]

32. Spooked...

have you given much thought at all as to which actor should play your part in the movie that will surely be made eventually of the story of your life? After all, your bravery and perseverance in the face of all the ridicule thrown your way is rather remarkable, don't you think? I must admit that I haven't given much thought as to a title if it winds up being a serious drama, but I'm thinking if the producers go more the route of a "dramedy", it should be entitled: "Bunny Cage: A True Story of Treason and One Man Who Dared Fight it". Oh, wait...did I say "treason"? I, of course, meant "reason". Catchy, huh. Personally, I think you should hold out for Gary Busey, who has a long history of portraying edgy heroes. Who could ever forget his riveting performance in the Buddy Holly Story, dude? Unfortunately, those craven Hollywood folks will probably cast Will Ferrell or some other nutty guy like that. However it goes down, make us proud, Spooked.

Now, I don't know about anyone else, but I would be thrilled just to be able to do a cameo role or even have a walk-on part. At the very least, could we be extras in the film? Do you plan on having the premiere in Indianapolis? Can we, at least, get tee shirts?

[William Seger]

33. No, the curtain walls would not affect the behavior of the inner columns

There is no reason to think the curtain walls were involved in initiating the collapse or that they played any significant role in the progressive collapse, so they were irrelevant to what NIST wanted to study.

If you could appreciate how implausible most people find the controlled demolition hypothesis, and how poor that hypothesis is at explaining all the facts, you might at least appreciate why your "List of Things I Don't Understand" is a laughable substitute for evidence, especially when they're not really all that hard to understand. The apparently insurmountable problem that both you and Richard Gage face is convincing other people that they don't understand them, either.

[spooked911]

34. You act as though the curtain walls:

1) were not attached to the inner structure (beams and columns)
2) didn't fall at free-fall speed
3) provided stability and rigidity but had no effect on the collapse of the inner structure.

In other words, complete nonsense.

But, please, tell me about how ALL the facts that support collapse.

[AZCat]

35. I find it quite amusing...

that you think you can hold up your end of a discussion regarding the modeling of structure dynamics and yet you still use phrases like "free-fall speed". Give it up, spooked - this is way beyond your skill level.

[William Seger]

36. "complete nonsense"

> You act as though the curtain walls:
> 1) were not attached to the inner structure (beams and columns)

They weren't. The curtain walls were attached to the exterior columns and spandrel beams. If you're referring to how those columns and beams were connected to interior columns and beams, here's a clue for you: If you don't know anything about the connections used in WTC7, and you don't understand why it matters, then you have no business wasting people's time with ignorant speculation about what caused the collapse or imaginary flaws in the NIST analysis.

> 2) didn't fall at free-fall speed

Eh? What the hell does that have to do with what we're talking about? Everything falls at free-fall acceleration when there's nothing preventing it. If you are under the delusion that I buy the idiotic notion that free-fall acceleration = demolition, you are sadly mistaken. The NIST simulation shows why WTC7 experienced a brief period of free-fall acceleration, and you can see it in the video you posted: The progressive collapse spread vertically across about 8 lower floors before the top began to fall. After allowing the top to fall only a few feet, those columns were buckled to the point that they presented virtually no resistance to the top falling at near free-fall acceleration until it collided with the intact structure below.

> 3) provided stability and rigidity but had no effect on the collapse of the inner structure.

The curtain walls apparently had enough rigidity to hold the basic box shape of the top part of the building as it fell, but none of the videos show what was happening lower down or inside the building. But yes, I'm saying that this rigidity had no significant effect on the load-bearing structure's ability to resist the progressive collapse.

You completely dodged my point, so I'll say it again: There is no logical reason to expect the exterior columns in the simulation to look like the real building as it fell, because the simulation did not include those rigid curtain walls. But the simulation was concerned with studying the behavior of the floors and load-bearing structure during collapse initiation, not the appearance of the building's facade after the collapse was already under way.

If you think that's "complete nonsense," then I have to (again) question your understanding of simple structural mechanics, or your understanding of the purpose of the model, or both. And I have to (again) question why you persist in offering your own lack of understanding as evidence of anything other than itself.

> But, please, tell me about how ALL the facts that support collapse.

When Richard Gage wants to "explain" why the collapse didn't sound anything like a controlled demolition, he claims that thermite was used. But when he wants to explain the suddenness of the collapse and the stuff being ejected, he switches to claiming explosives used used. Gullible fools may not notice that Gage is contradicting himself and that neither hypothesis explains the facts -- i.e. what we see and don't hear in the actual collapse -- but those facts won't disappear in Gage's cloud of smoke. Another fact: Gage and David Chandler love to claim that the brief period of free-fall acceleration can only be explained by a controlled demolition -- an absurd assertion (see above) -- but both studiously ignore the 1.5 seconds or so when the top fell several feet at much less acceleration. It's convenient for them to ignore it because then they don't need to explain how a controlled demolition could have that effect.

The NIST model explains all the known facts about the collapse, whereas the "truth movement" has yet to come up with a controlled demolition hypothesis that does. Instead of any rational, consistent hypothesis of their own or any valid technical criticism of the NIST hypothesis, all we get from the "truth movement" is incredulity, imaginary physics, and unsubstantiated speculations asserted as facts.

[zappaman]

37. okay, you have facts but...

it doesn't look right to me.
therefore something fishy happened.

[mrarundale]

4. Looks like NIST contracts out to Loizeaux Group International

(through ARA) for their structural "hypothesis" on WTC7. Now, where have I heard that name before? Oh yeah, it is the consulting arm of Controlled Demolition Inc which was hired to oversee the removal of evidence, I mean, "debris" from the WTC 7; how convenient.

[zappaman]

5. bingo!!!!

have you alerted the media?

[SDuderstadt]

7. I'm just curious...

Mr. A...how many people have you determined were "in on it" now? Is it less than one thousand?

I just want you to know that I sleep peacefully each night just knowing that you're on the case.

[LARED]

6. Spooked posts another joke. No surprise -. nt

[PufPuf23]

10. All I can say is sloppy modeling. lol

The NIST model should at least look like the video. Geez.

Of course, this will not be in media.

Also the narrative and facts are screwy particularly if one does not believe everything in the media or on the internet.

Who the hell knows if there is a joke or just sloppy modeling?

Pardon my Dungeon visit, the election and other events have kept me awake and cynical.