looks like a good digital model of what all the videos show. of cource untruthers will be mad because it completly blows there whole 'super-nano-micro-atomic-invisiable-paint on-magic-thermite' idea out the window.... oh well....
btw, does anyone know what show this was on on discovery? i would like to actualy see the whole thing from them.
none of the collapses where 'uniform, and straight-down' as you claim.for proof of this just look at the debires piles.they where asymmetrical and dammaged all the surrounding buildings
also,if you dont know, engineering models use 'scaleing' to make little changes visable my multiplying them massivly, hence a .1'movement in real life shows as a 'visable in the model' movement of 10'.talk to a SE professor at a local college
@spcantwell I removed my comment to avoid getting into a senseless debate, finding myself between two political arguments I made my commentary based on the actual video of the collapse, where its clear that the building does not compress into itself at its top. While I agree that there was some weaving in the structure at collapse, it didn't fold in on itself as portrayed in the video. Saying that a model's scalingis 10x exaggerated isn't really a stultification for such inaccuracy
again, the computer model isnt ment to be a 1:1 match to what happened. it is ment to show the progression of the failure one spot to the rest of the building.
i will never be able to convince you, just go talk to a SE proffessor. many even teach the WTC collapses as part of there class. sit down with them in there office and actauly talk to him, see if he can explain to you your issues.
@spcantwell The inaccuracy could be due to an improperly implemented physics engine in the models. If the models had a proper physics engine and the points of failure were correctly assigned, the result would be a visual match. I'm unsure of what you're trying to convince me; that the models are not an accurate visual representation but that just means its more accurate? And which of the two models is correct? You seem to be saying its both of the differently expressed scenarios.
no, what i am trying to point out is that just because something isnt a 'visual' match doesnt mean its not a mathematical, phsyical, or engineering match. how something 'looks' is the worst possible discrioption (as far as engineers are concerned).
what i cant understand is why dont untruthers just hire an 'independent' SE firm to produce hard data (not just more claims). the only possible reason i can see is that deep down untruthers know they are wrong
@spcantwell How an event 'looks' is a direct manifestation of physics and mathematics. The whole is equal to the sum of its parts. I'm unsure why you went on that spiel in your second paragraph, but my desire to not have a conversation with an emotionally involved individual is exactly why I deleted my first post. Good day, sir.
"How an event 'looks' is a direct manifestation of physics and mathematics"
so you mean that david copperfield really made the statue of liberty disapear? after all it LOOKED like he did?
i 'went on a spiel' because you are refuseing to acknowledge that 99.9999% of the SE's see no problem at all with the collapse. if it is so 'obvious' why cant the untruthers get a engineering report saying that?
@spcantwell You think the reason why the simulation doesn't look like the collapse is because of some sort of David Copperfield style illusion? Visualization is the process of analyzing visible inframed light particles; the eyes can be just as accurate as any other diagnostic instrument. What you're talking about with the David Coppfield thing is how the mind interprets that visual data. Such data is also limited by perspective. What you're saying is unrelated.
no, i think that the reason the simulation isnt a 1:1 match is because when you are talking about 500' tall building a deflection of .1' is not visable. so engineers use scaleing to make things visable. david copperfield is just an example of what something 'looks like' isnt always what it is.
fine, your PRESPECTIVE of how it looks has no bearing on what the engineering facts say. find an structual engineer that agrees with you (and get him to publish)
i will fully admit that i was incorrect about this model being 1:1 scale. that said, it does not change the fact that the visable part of the collapse as seen in the video matches this model quite well. all we can see is the upper half of the building and from one side.
i am still waiting for untruthers to find a single SE professional to write a paper detailing how nists reports are wrong.
@nehorlavazapalka the rotation and acceleration of the penthouse (west) the missing north wall bowing, the missing leaning... there are tons of MEASURABLE things that don't match the real thing I MEAN MEASURABLE
well then, have the untruthers hire an expert to put this all in writeing. its that simple. if its so 'obvious' that watching a video is enough to see it the SE should do it on the cheap for you (just make sure hes not 'in on it' like the other million or so engineers)
ok, where is the SE who is writeing a paper about something so 'obvious'? there are about 100,000 in the US alone, the number jumps into the millions if you include all 'architecture and engineering professionals'
@spcantwell There are two models in this video. The second one begins at 0:10. Also, this video cuts before the models enter their actual collapse. This is a clip from the Discovery Channel documentary which didn't show the full collapse of either model. Video at Sidebar "WTC 7 NIST Model Reality Check" (untruther video, I know) has the full simulation for the second model, which shows the building's edges folding into eachother and collapsing into the building's middle.
i think he may be right, they both clips look simular to me. are you sure that they are not just rotated for a differnt view?
the problem i have is that the 2 videos of wtc7 both only show the two walls. you can not see what is happening on the other two (where most of the 'deforming' happens on the 1st model). as for the 2nd one, i just wonder how accuratly the outer walls were modeled. do you know what variable where changed between the 2?
@spcantwell I actually think the first simulation matches up quite well, except for some deformation in the corners. The kind of angled accordion collapse at the end matches well. However, the second simulation is complete rubbish. Why they even released it, I don't know.
my only thought on the second sim was that it was either a 'worst' or 'best' case senario for some variable or that it was something along the lines of the 'removed 79' model. is there any data about what imputs they changed?
@spcantwell they made multiple simulations, this one is probably the best match, yet it still doesn't show: intact corners, bowing of north perimeter before the fall, the right west penthouse collapse mode (in reality the west penthouse didn't rotate like in this video). The real WTC7 w. penthouse also came down in freefall... these aren't minor details
again, you are looking at an outer wall and assumeing that the interior is behaveing exactly the same.
its veary simple... if the differnces are so 'obvious' where are the engineers speaking out about it in professional journals? its been 10 years? whats the delay for something so obvious? are they all 'in on it'?
@spcantwell engineers and NIST both believe that WTC1's top section tilted 8 degrees before falling, while in reality it took about a half degreee, very significant finding yet they don't talk about this
it is simple, engineers rely on NIST and NIST did a very sloppy job at observing the collapses, it is really that simple
again, where is the report from a structural engineer detailing all of this? are they ALL 'in on it'?
hate to break it to you, but your claims all revolve arround things that can be 'seen' in the videos. meaning that any engineers that watches any of the collapse vids can see it as well. in the past 10 years not ONE of them has noticed these 'glaring' mistakes?
@spcantwell yes, in 10 years no one noticed that the WTC1 upper section didn't tilt 8°before collapsing but rather 0,5-0,7°. This is very significant because (with other measurements) it confirms that the collapse initiated inside the core and not in the south perimeter. Those engineers didn't really study those vids.
wow, are you now saying that besides the nist report not a single structural engineer (or even just a civil one) studied one of the most important collapseing in history? thats odd because there are quiet a few articles from professionals who HAVE studied it and find no fault with nists claims that fire alone caused the collapses
if thats the case, then why are you on here?go find some engineers and show them the vid. talk to them and LISTEN to there answers
@spcantwell yes, no one noticed the fact about the tilt or the WTC7 leaning, because it requires a rather detailed study of the footage... those engineers deal mainly with computer analysis.. you seem to overestimate the interest of engineers in this particular case.. in other words - those engineers get their numbers from NIST (8°degrees)
overestimate the interest of engineers in one of the (if not THE ) larges structural disasters in the world? the ONLY reason that engineers would not be interested in it is i they could tell from the first viewing that there is ZERO reson to expect that anything other then the collapse would happen under those fire loads
again, then why are you on utube commenting on someone elses video? why arnt you going door to door at engineering compaines showing them?
wow, what a fact filled response... i will wait for you to finish your degree and read the report that you write for SEtoday.... until then, i will listen to the overwelming majority of engineers in the world who understand that the collapses where caused by fires alone
what EXACTLY am i lieing about? and plese show the FACTS that say that i am lieing.. not just you makeing a differnt claim and since i dont automaticaly agree with you i "must" be lieing....
@spcantwell google wtc7 deflection scale issue (Steve Cauffman (NIST)confirmed that it was 1:1), I'm not for or against the demolition issue.. but I can tell you that WTC7 started to lean westward 90s before it's final collapse. That alone invalidates the entire NIST report. There's also a very solid case for core lead failure in both towers (measured from wall deformations and mast sagging), making NIST wrong again. Read the forum, it's years worth of very good forensic video measurements.
after reading the JREFpostings about it, i would have to agree that it does seem to be 1:1, though Cauffman seems to be talking about the DATA not the visual? there is also the issue that they seem to be talking about the models seen in NCSTAR 1 (aka towers 1&2) and not NCSTAR 1A (aka wtc7)?
anywho, my bad. i just assumed this model to be set up the same as most other ones.
it started to lean west? how does that disprove the collapse model? are you talking about the whole strucutre or just the west wall? i know that the only videos avaiable are the ones that are a good mile+ away and only of the one side. there is no video (or photographic) evidence of what has happening inside the building or on the lower half of it in the mins before the collapse. i stand by my statement that this model matches what is seen in the video
no, NIST can't explain the leaning TO YOU = the model is garbage TO YOU. where are the SE's and structural failure engineers who have writen something about something so 'obvious'? could it be that you just dont understand it?
if you really wanted the 'truth' go talk to a SE professor at a local college, show him you 'proof' ask him your questions.... a lot of prof actualy use the collapses in there classes now as examples.
@spcantwell heh, NIST doesn't even know (or does not aknowledge) that there was a leaning. Their story about column 79 can't explain it. The fact is that 90s before the onset of collapse WTC7 started to lean and continued to do so untill the very collapse. Therefore we need a new investigation.
@spcantwell by the way the nearest structural engineering dep. to me has at least one Ph.D. who does not support NIST's conclusions regarding WTC7.... I also supplied him with some blueprints, so I know...
really? what school? he sould be a member of one of the untruther groups so it will be easy to find if you dont want to give me a name.
or is this just anouther 'guy i know' who untruthers refuse to say who it is (i once had a guy trying to tell me that his 'dad' who was an 'operating engineer' therefore an expert in strucutural engineering, when i pointed out reality to him he deleted that accont the next day...
no, my use of the word UNtruther is due to the fact that most self proclaimed 'truthers' want nothing to do with the truth, they only want there version of it to be the one that everyone accepts, hence the UNtruth.
if they (and you) really want the TRUTH, they would become experts in the feild of structural dynamics, firefighting, piloting, etc.. and then write papers professionaly about what they know to convince others in that field, not yelling on you tube
@spcantwell It is measurable that NIST scenarios are nonsense (tilt... and so on). A new open investigation would cost less than a single new F-35 engine.
so why dont untruthers all pool together a few mil and get a truely 'independant' group to do one? if the gov just does anouther one and they still dont agree with you, you will just say that THAT group is 'in on it' as well
@spcantwell maybe they would, but for one I would be very content with a new investigation - but they would have to use realistic parameters (NIST overestimated the temperatures in WTC7 steel two to two and half times) and release all their models..... And I'm wondering why ae911truth haven't done their own models - there are API programs like extreme loading which require only a small human effort and still produce very nice results.. (~ 100k$)
actualy nist UNDER estimated the temps and used 'best case for survival' temps. according to the NFPA and multible fire tests office fire reach 1,000 to 1800 dC
there are 2 reasons AE911 hasnt done anything. 1, few (if any) of there people are qualified to do such models (most of them arnt even CE's much less SE's) and 2, the few that DO know how to know that if they do, they will be proven wrong (and loose there untruther cash flow)
@spcantwell yeah, like modeling 2,5h+ fires in the south east corner while the real fires burned there only for 30-40 minutes. In real world none of the steel in WTC7 had reached temperatures higher than 300°C, NIST got parts of the beams to 700°C. And fuck you if you try to say otherwise because that would be a fucking lie.
are you really that much of an untruther? you do realise that the TESTING was for 2.5 hrs? that doesnt mean that they used the data from the whole thing for this perticualr incident. esspicaly givin that the temps start dropping after the 60min mark (varies depending on enviromental conditions and contents)
none of the wtc fires got over 300? really? these where some kind of 'cold' fires then?
@spcantwell shut up U bitch, the fire load in WTC7 on that floors was 32kg/m^2 maximum, that means 40 minutes of fire, with sustained peak temperatures of 800°C. This is supported with photo.evidence which shows 40 minutes of fire maximum in any given area. NIST modelel 2,5h+ fires with average temperature around 800°C in the north-east and south east corners. Only a pussy can deny that.
@nehorlavazapalka Uh, btw I suggest you to improve your reading skills I sad that none of the WTC7 reached temperatures above 300°C not that the fires were only 300°C, U fail....roflmao....
You know, you seem to enjoy this level of discussion.
umm, didnt you just say that they where at 800dC? i really wish you would make up your mind...
again, as you think you know more then NFPA and every firefighter, you should join up a FD. you can walk into any fire building and now that the fires are only 300dC, so you dont even need nomex. its amazing how much untruthers like you know without actualy haveing ANY experiance or education in the feilds you are commenting about
so you DO claim that the NFPA doesnt know anything about office fires?
even at that 800dC how much strength does steel have? at 600 it is at 50% and falling FAST. something arorund 75% i think (i dont feel like doing the math tonight)
what about thermal expansion? how much is a long span floor going to expand (and where is it going to expand to?).
again, that 2.5 hrs is the whole fire, they tested to the end of the fire, not just the time for the wtc
Its like they think we cant watch it collapse. Ae911truth =Thousands of Experts in Many Fields, already proved nist criminal/liers. They prove it with evidence and physics not 100% Theory like nist , FACT , It is no argument anymore, Truthers are Experts with degrees Not Uneducated U Tube Trolls like Dbunksnothing's'
Anyone else notice that the (supposedly) large "scooped out" area (supposedly) at the bottom S/E corner of B7 that was (supposedly) caused by the "collapse" of the Sth Tower...that the debunkernuts LOVE quoting and showing photo-shopped pics of when "debating" us
...DOESN'T appear AT ALL on the NIST sim?...
XD
LMFAO..remember this NEXT time they try it with YOU.
smelled like bs when it first came out and it still smells like bullshit
nrgjunky1 1 month ago
Comment removed
Tautoulogic 1 month ago
looks like a good digital model of what all the videos show. of cource untruthers will be mad because it completly blows there whole 'super-nano-micro-atomic-invisiable-paint on-magic-thermite' idea out the window.... oh well....
btw, does anyone know what show this was on on discovery? i would like to actualy see the whole thing from them.
spcantwell 3 months ago
Comment removed
WalrusDoctor 2 months ago
@WalrusDoctor
not sure why you removed your comment, BUT
none of the collapses where 'uniform, and straight-down' as you claim.for proof of this just look at the debires piles.they where asymmetrical and dammaged all the surrounding buildings
also,if you dont know, engineering models use 'scaleing' to make little changes visable my multiplying them massivly, hence a .1'movement in real life shows as a 'visable in the model' movement of 10'.talk to a SE professor at a local college
spcantwell 2 months ago
@spcantwell I removed my comment to avoid getting into a senseless debate, finding myself between two political arguments I made my commentary based on the actual video of the collapse, where its clear that the building does not compress into itself at its top. While I agree that there was some weaving in the structure at collapse, it didn't fold in on itself as portrayed in the video. Saying that a model's scalingis 10x exaggerated isn't really a stultification for such inaccuracy
WalrusDoctor 1 month ago
@WalrusDoctor justification*
WalrusDoctor 1 month ago
@WalrusDoctor
again, the computer model isnt ment to be a 1:1 match to what happened. it is ment to show the progression of the failure one spot to the rest of the building.
i will never be able to convince you, just go talk to a SE proffessor. many even teach the WTC collapses as part of there class. sit down with them in there office and actauly talk to him, see if he can explain to you your issues.
spcantwell 1 month ago
@spcantwell The inaccuracy could be due to an improperly implemented physics engine in the models. If the models had a proper physics engine and the points of failure were correctly assigned, the result would be a visual match. I'm unsure of what you're trying to convince me; that the models are not an accurate visual representation but that just means its more accurate? And which of the two models is correct? You seem to be saying its both of the differently expressed scenarios.
WalrusDoctor 1 month ago
@WalrusDoctor
no, what i am trying to point out is that just because something isnt a 'visual' match doesnt mean its not a mathematical, phsyical, or engineering match. how something 'looks' is the worst possible discrioption (as far as engineers are concerned).
what i cant understand is why dont untruthers just hire an 'independent' SE firm to produce hard data (not just more claims). the only possible reason i can see is that deep down untruthers know they are wrong
spcantwell 1 month ago
@spcantwell How an event 'looks' is a direct manifestation of physics and mathematics. The whole is equal to the sum of its parts. I'm unsure why you went on that spiel in your second paragraph, but my desire to not have a conversation with an emotionally involved individual is exactly why I deleted my first post. Good day, sir.
WalrusDoctor 1 month ago
@WalrusDoctor
"How an event 'looks' is a direct manifestation of physics and mathematics"
so you mean that david copperfield really made the statue of liberty disapear? after all it LOOKED like he did?
i 'went on a spiel' because you are refuseing to acknowledge that 99.9999% of the SE's see no problem at all with the collapse. if it is so 'obvious' why cant the untruthers get a engineering report saying that?
spcantwell 1 month ago
@spcantwell You think the reason why the simulation doesn't look like the collapse is because of some sort of David Copperfield style illusion? Visualization is the process of analyzing visible inframed light particles; the eyes can be just as accurate as any other diagnostic instrument. What you're talking about with the David Coppfield thing is how the mind interprets that visual data. Such data is also limited by perspective. What you're saying is unrelated.
WalrusDoctor 1 month ago
@WalrusDoctor
no, i think that the reason the simulation isnt a 1:1 match is because when you are talking about 500' tall building a deflection of .1' is not visable. so engineers use scaleing to make things visable. david copperfield is just an example of what something 'looks like' isnt always what it is.
fine, your PRESPECTIVE of how it looks has no bearing on what the engineering facts say. find an structual engineer that agrees with you (and get him to publish)
spcantwell 1 month ago
@WalrusDoctor
i will fully admit that i was incorrect about this model being 1:1 scale. that said, it does not change the fact that the visable part of the collapse as seen in the video matches this model quite well. all we can see is the upper half of the building and from one side.
i am still waiting for untruthers to find a single SE professional to write a paper detailing how nists reports are wrong.
spcantwell 1 month ago
@spcantwell it does not match the real collapse at all
nehorlavazapalka 1 month ago
@nehorlavazapalka the rotation and acceleration of the penthouse (west) the missing north wall bowing, the missing leaning... there are tons of MEASURABLE things that don't match the real thing I MEAN MEASURABLE
nehorlavazapalka 1 month ago
@nehorlavazapalka
well then, have the untruthers hire an expert to put this all in writeing. its that simple. if its so 'obvious' that watching a video is enough to see it the SE should do it on the cheap for you (just make sure hes not 'in on it' like the other million or so engineers)
spcantwell 1 month ago
@nehorlavazapalka
ok, where is the SE who is writeing a paper about something so 'obvious'? there are about 100,000 in the US alone, the number jumps into the millions if you include all 'architecture and engineering professionals'
spcantwell 1 month ago
@spcantwell There are two models in this video. The second one begins at 0:10. Also, this video cuts before the models enter their actual collapse. This is a clip from the Discovery Channel documentary which didn't show the full collapse of either model. Video at Sidebar "WTC 7 NIST Model Reality Check" (untruther video, I know) has the full simulation for the second model, which shows the building's edges folding into eachother and collapsing into the building's middle.
WalrusDoctor 1 month ago
@WalrusDoctor heh, funny how you guys can not notice that the simulations in this video are the same only from different angles
nehorlavazapalka 1 month ago
@WalrusDoctor
i think he may be right, they both clips look simular to me. are you sure that they are not just rotated for a differnt view?
the problem i have is that the 2 videos of wtc7 both only show the two walls. you can not see what is happening on the other two (where most of the 'deforming' happens on the 1st model). as for the 2nd one, i just wonder how accuratly the outer walls were modeled. do you know what variable where changed between the 2?
spcantwell 1 month ago
@spcantwell they had only one run (officialy) with the impact damage model... look at the axis in 720p
nehorlavazapalka 1 month ago
@spcantwell I actually think the first simulation matches up quite well, except for some deformation in the corners. The kind of angled accordion collapse at the end matches well. However, the second simulation is complete rubbish. Why they even released it, I don't know.
WalrusDoctor 1 month ago
@WalrusDoctor it matches nothing
nehorlavazapalka 1 month ago
@WalrusDoctor
my only thought on the second sim was that it was either a 'worst' or 'best' case senario for some variable or that it was something along the lines of the 'removed 79' model. is there any data about what imputs they changed?
spcantwell 1 month ago
@spcantwell they made multiple simulations, this one is probably the best match, yet it still doesn't show: intact corners, bowing of north perimeter before the fall, the right west penthouse collapse mode (in reality the west penthouse didn't rotate like in this video). The real WTC7 w. penthouse also came down in freefall... these aren't minor details
nehorlavazapalka 1 month ago
@nehorlavazapalka
again, you are looking at an outer wall and assumeing that the interior is behaveing exactly the same.
its veary simple... if the differnces are so 'obvious' where are the engineers speaking out about it in professional journals? its been 10 years? whats the delay for something so obvious? are they all 'in on it'?
spcantwell 1 month ago
@spcantwell engineers and NIST both believe that WTC1's top section tilted 8 degrees before falling, while in reality it took about a half degreee, very significant finding yet they don't talk about this
it is simple, engineers rely on NIST and NIST did a very sloppy job at observing the collapses, it is really that simple
nehorlavazapalka 1 month ago
@nehorlavazapalka by the way, you can find him at ae911 petition (I don't like ae911 either, because they go way too far), he's at TU Brno
nehorlavazapalka 1 month ago
@nehorlavazapalka
im sorry, find who? was this directed to me?
spcantwell 1 month ago
@nehorlavazapalka
again, where is the report from a structural engineer detailing all of this? are they ALL 'in on it'?
hate to break it to you, but your claims all revolve arround things that can be 'seen' in the videos. meaning that any engineers that watches any of the collapse vids can see it as well. in the past 10 years not ONE of them has noticed these 'glaring' mistakes?
spcantwell 1 month ago
@spcantwell yes, in 10 years no one noticed that the WTC1 upper section didn't tilt 8°before collapsing but rather 0,5-0,7°. This is very significant because (with other measurements) it confirms that the collapse initiated inside the core and not in the south perimeter. Those engineers didn't really study those vids.
nehorlavazapalka 1 month ago
@nehorlavazapalka
wow, are you now saying that besides the nist report not a single structural engineer (or even just a civil one) studied one of the most important collapseing in history? thats odd because there are quiet a few articles from professionals who HAVE studied it and find no fault with nists claims that fire alone caused the collapses
if thats the case, then why are you on here?go find some engineers and show them the vid. talk to them and LISTEN to there answers
spcantwell 1 month ago
@spcantwell yes, no one noticed the fact about the tilt or the WTC7 leaning, because it requires a rather detailed study of the footage... those engineers deal mainly with computer analysis.. you seem to overestimate the interest of engineers in this particular case.. in other words - those engineers get their numbers from NIST (8°degrees)
8°-> 0,5°degrees is a very big deal
nehorlavazapalka 1 month ago
@nehorlavazapalka
overestimate the interest of engineers in one of the (if not THE ) larges structural disasters in the world? the ONLY reason that engineers would not be interested in it is i they could tell from the first viewing that there is ZERO reson to expect that anything other then the collapse would happen under those fire loads
again, then why are you on utube commenting on someone elses video? why arnt you going door to door at engineering compaines showing them?
spcantwell 1 month ago
@spcantwell you are ridiculous
nehorlavazapalka 1 month ago
@nehorlavazapalka
wow, what a fact filled response... i will wait for you to finish your degree and read the report that you write for SEtoday.... until then, i will listen to the overwelming majority of engineers in the world who understand that the collapses where caused by fires alone
spcantwell 1 month ago
@spcantwell so U are a fucking liar, nice.
nehorlavazapalka 1 month ago
@nehorlavazapalka
what EXACTLY am i lieing about? and plese show the FACTS that say that i am lieing.. not just you makeing a differnt claim and since i dont automaticaly agree with you i "must" be lieing....
spcantwell 1 month ago
@WalrusDoctor it's 1:1
nehorlavazapalka 1 month ago
@spcantwell no, the sim is 1:1
nehorlavazapalka 1 month ago
@nehorlavazapalka
where did you get that information from? what source says that it was 1:1 (and unlike any other engineering model)
spcantwell 1 month ago
@spcantwell google wtc7 deflection scale issue (Steve Cauffman (NIST)confirmed that it was 1:1), I'm not for or against the demolition issue.. but I can tell you that WTC7 started to lean westward 90s before it's final collapse. That alone invalidates the entire NIST report. There's also a very solid case for core lead failure in both towers (measured from wall deformations and mast sagging), making NIST wrong again. Read the forum, it's years worth of very good forensic video measurements.
nehorlavazapalka 1 month ago
@nehorlavazapalka
after reading the JREFpostings about it, i would have to agree that it does seem to be 1:1, though Cauffman seems to be talking about the DATA not the visual? there is also the issue that they seem to be talking about the models seen in NCSTAR 1 (aka towers 1&2) and not NCSTAR 1A (aka wtc7)?
anywho, my bad. i just assumed this model to be set up the same as most other ones.
spcantwell 1 month ago
@nehorlavazapalka
it started to lean west? how does that disprove the collapse model? are you talking about the whole strucutre or just the west wall? i know that the only videos avaiable are the ones that are a good mile+ away and only of the one side. there is no video (or photographic) evidence of what has happening inside the building or on the lower half of it in the mins before the collapse. i stand by my statement that this model matches what is seen in the video
spcantwell 1 month ago
@spcantwell well, NIST can't explain the leaning = the model is garbage, the details are on that "linked" site
nehorlavazapalka 1 month ago
@nehorlavazapalka
no, NIST can't explain the leaning TO YOU = the model is garbage TO YOU. where are the SE's and structural failure engineers who have writen something about something so 'obvious'? could it be that you just dont understand it?
if you really wanted the 'truth' go talk to a SE professor at a local college, show him you 'proof' ask him your questions.... a lot of prof actualy use the collapses in there classes now as examples.
spcantwell 1 month ago
@spcantwell heh, NIST doesn't even know (or does not aknowledge) that there was a leaning. Their story about column 79 can't explain it. The fact is that 90s before the onset of collapse WTC7 started to lean and continued to do so untill the very collapse. Therefore we need a new investigation.
nehorlavazapalka 1 month ago
@nehorlavazapalka
what leaning are you talking about? just to make sure we are on the same page. what primary source are you useing?
90s? but i thought the untruther line was that it came down in 4s or 9s or 6s (it varies depending on what untruther you are talking to)
spcantwell 1 month ago
@spcantwell by the way the nearest structural engineering dep. to me has at least one Ph.D. who does not support NIST's conclusions regarding WTC7.... I also supplied him with some blueprints, so I know...
nehorlavazapalka 1 month ago
@nehorlavazapalka
really? what school? he sould be a member of one of the untruther groups so it will be easy to find if you dont want to give me a name.
or is this just anouther 'guy i know' who untruthers refuse to say who it is (i once had a guy trying to tell me that his 'dad' who was an 'operating engineer' therefore an expert in strucutural engineering, when i pointed out reality to him he deleted that accont the next day...
spcantwell 1 month ago
@spcantwell your use of word untruther clearly indicates your emotional investment and lack of will to debate this issue in a rational way
nehorlavazapalka 1 month ago
@nehorlavazapalka
no, my use of the word UNtruther is due to the fact that most self proclaimed 'truthers' want nothing to do with the truth, they only want there version of it to be the one that everyone accepts, hence the UNtruth.
if they (and you) really want the TRUTH, they would become experts in the feild of structural dynamics, firefighting, piloting, etc.. and then write papers professionaly about what they know to convince others in that field, not yelling on you tube
spcantwell 1 month ago
@spcantwell It is measurable that NIST scenarios are nonsense (tilt... and so on). A new open investigation would cost less than a single new F-35 engine.
nehorlavazapalka 1 month ago
@nehorlavazapalka
so why dont untruthers all pool together a few mil and get a truely 'independant' group to do one? if the gov just does anouther one and they still dont agree with you, you will just say that THAT group is 'in on it' as well
spcantwell 1 month ago
@spcantwell maybe they would, but for one I would be very content with a new investigation - but they would have to use realistic parameters (NIST overestimated the temperatures in WTC7 steel two to two and half times) and release all their models..... And I'm wondering why ae911truth haven't done their own models - there are API programs like extreme loading which require only a small human effort and still produce very nice results.. (~ 100k$)
nehorlavazapalka 1 month ago
@nehorlavazapalka
actualy nist UNDER estimated the temps and used 'best case for survival' temps. according to the NFPA and multible fire tests office fire reach 1,000 to 1800 dC
there are 2 reasons AE911 hasnt done anything. 1, few (if any) of there people are qualified to do such models (most of them arnt even CE's much less SE's) and 2, the few that DO know how to know that if they do, they will be proven wrong (and loose there untruther cash flow)
spcantwell 1 month ago
@spcantwell yeah, like modeling 2,5h+ fires in the south east corner while the real fires burned there only for 30-40 minutes. In real world none of the steel in WTC7 had reached temperatures higher than 300°C, NIST got parts of the beams to 700°C. And fuck you if you try to say otherwise because that would be a fucking lie.
nehorlavazapalka 1 month ago
@nehorlavazapalka
are you really that much of an untruther? you do realise that the TESTING was for 2.5 hrs? that doesnt mean that they used the data from the whole thing for this perticualr incident. esspicaly givin that the temps start dropping after the 60min mark (varies depending on enviromental conditions and contents)
none of the wtc fires got over 300? really? these where some kind of 'cold' fires then?
NFPA says office fires are 1,000 to 1,800dC
prove them wrong
spcantwell 1 month ago
@spcantwell shut up U bitch, the fire load in WTC7 on that floors was 32kg/m^2 maximum, that means 40 minutes of fire, with sustained peak temperatures of 800°C. This is supported with photo.evidence which shows 40 minutes of fire maximum in any given area. NIST modelel 2,5h+ fires with average temperature around 800°C in the north-east and south east corners. Only a pussy can deny that.
nehorlavazapalka 1 month ago
@nehorlavazapalka Uh, btw I suggest you to improve your reading skills I sad that none of the WTC7 reached temperatures above 300°C not that the fires were only 300°C, U fail....roflmao....
You know, you seem to enjoy this level of discussion.
nehorlavazapalka 1 month ago
@nehorlavazapalka
umm, didnt you just say that they where at 800dC? i really wish you would make up your mind...
again, as you think you know more then NFPA and every firefighter, you should join up a FD. you can walk into any fire building and now that the fires are only 300dC, so you dont even need nomex. its amazing how much untruthers like you know without actualy haveing ANY experiance or education in the feilds you are commenting about
spcantwell 1 month ago
@spcantwell u must be an idiot
nehorlavazapalka 1 month ago
@nehorlavazapalka correction, U are
nehorlavazapalka 1 month ago
@nehorlavazapalka
so you DO claim that the NFPA doesnt know anything about office fires?
even at that 800dC how much strength does steel have? at 600 it is at 50% and falling FAST. something arorund 75% i think (i dont feel like doing the math tonight)
what about thermal expansion? how much is a long span floor going to expand (and where is it going to expand to?).
again, that 2.5 hrs is the whole fire, they tested to the end of the fire, not just the time for the wtc
spcantwell 1 month ago
Some people STILL argue that NIST "resolved" the collapse of WTC 7.
Those people are either:
1. Paid Shills.
2. Incredibly stupid.
3. Mentally ill.
CodeTwo2 3 months ago
this works out! congratz!
lsteer100 4 months ago
on this model you can see that the top is not moving at the beginning of the fall
but in the real movie you will see that the top is falling since the very beginning
jam63112 4 months ago
Its like they think we cant watch it collapse. Ae911truth =Thousands of Experts in Many Fields, already proved nist criminal/liers. They prove it with evidence and physics not 100% Theory like nist , FACT , It is no argument anymore, Truthers are Experts with degrees Not Uneducated U Tube Trolls like Dbunksnothing's'
Headshothorror4488 4 months ago
ONE other thing:
Anyone else notice that the (supposedly) large "scooped out" area (supposedly) at the bottom S/E corner of B7 that was (supposedly) caused by the "collapse" of the Sth Tower...that the debunkernuts LOVE quoting and showing photo-shopped pics of when "debating" us
...DOESN'T appear AT ALL on the NIST sim?...
XD
LMFAO..remember this NEXT time they try it with YOU.
homerbear46 4 months ago
WTC7 fell in 5 seconds, so it is a controlled demolition.
DesmoRob 6 months ago
Comment removed
DesmoRob 6 months ago