Mackey's and NIST's fluff arguments
This post is in response to the 1st part of shaman_'s
post 1418 in this thread.
The example isn't silly- I'm trying to explain to you how Ryan Mackey's counter was so flawed that all one has to go back to what he's countering to realize this.
You are in a forum discussion Scott, it is up to you to show why it is flawed. You can’t. If you can’t then move on. Due to your faith you believe your claims are self evident. That is preaching. Repeatedly posting the article he is criticizing as a replacement for a rebuttal is just spamming. Posting an example with maths does not change the situation.
So far, the only person who I'm sure isn't convinced is you.
The members of the forum far more intelligent and qualified than I are not interested in wasting their time reading your posts and debating with you.
I'm discussing the following passage from Steven Jones' paper,
Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?:
*******************
The NIST report makes for interesting reading. The less severe cases based on empirical data were discarded because they did not result in building collapse. But ‘we must save the hypothesis,’ so more severe cases were tried and the simulations tweaked, as we read in the NIST report:
The more severe case (which became Case B for WTC 1 and Case D for WTC 2) was used for the global analysis of each tower. Complete sets of simulations were then performed for Cases B and D. To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance,…the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted… (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.)
The primary role of the floors in the collapse of the towers was to provide inward pull forces that induced inward bowing of perimeter columns. (NIST, 2005, p. 180; emphasis added.)
How fun to tweak the model like that, until the building collapses — until one gets the desired result. But the end result of such tweaked computer hypotheticals is not compelling, sorry gentlemen. Notice that the “the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted” (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added) to get the perimeter columns to yield sufficiently — one suspects these were “adjusted” by hand quite a bit — even though the UK experts complained that “the core columns cannot pull the exterior [i.e., perimeter] columns in via the floor.” (Lane and Lamont, 2005; emphasis added.)
*******************
You have just proven my point. I mentioned the workstation tests and you ramble on about computer simulations. It is impossible to have a discussion with you without you jumping subjects all the time.
No kidding. I'm talking about the -physical- steel tests that NIST did; in those tests, not a single steel beam collapsed. As you may recall, Tony said that they even tested steel without any fireproofing at all, but it didn't collapse either.
But you can give me no details whatsoever about these tests. Temperatures? Time? What was the point of the tests? Ect ect. You keep referring to them and you don’t know a thing about them.
.. and once again, the point at hand was the workstation tests and you decided to ramble about some tests you don’t know anything about.
2 points:
1- There is little to no evidence that the office fires could have gotten the steel to reach those temperatures.
I have presented evidence that it was possible.
2- Even at those temperatures, the steel wouldn't have collapsed. You have only to look at your Cardington tests to see the veracity of this.
Once. Again. The columns were protected in the Cardington tests. The beams all sagged but the structure was stable because the columns stayed relatively cool.
The irony is that even the NIST computer simulations don't have the twin towers collapsing- they only get to 'poised to collapse'.
Sigh. The concrete core would have made it weaker, not stronger.
This assertion is based solely on your misunderstanding of a paragraph in a 911 research article.
NIST's fluff computer simulations
This post is in response to the 2nd and final part of shaman_'s
post 1418 in this thread.
Sigh. What evidence am I allegedly ignoring? .
Some tests which were posted for your four times and you ignored every time. Even if I find the post and you finally look at them it doesn’t change that you ignored the first four and you are completely transparent.
I believe psikeyhackr has covered this issue- the Cardington fire tests were done to a building within a building. .
The structure was small compared to the enormous hanger which it was inside. The tests, which were performed in different corners of the structure, would not be affected by an oven effect.
Ofcourse, the real clincher here is that even though the fires were by all the accounts I've heard, much hotter then what the WTC office fires were thought to have been, the building still didn't collapse. .
Yeah I don’t think I need to address this one again.
I'm not going to put into my own words what has already been said quite well by Kevin Ryan. If you don't want to read it just because it's not in my 'own words', so be it. Once again, from Kevin Ryan's article
Propping up the War on Terror:
In August 2004, Underwriters Laboratories evaluated the Pancake Theory by testing models of the floor assemblies used in the WTC buildings. Despite all the previous expert testimony, the floor models did not collapse. NIST reported this in its October 2004 update, in a table of results that clearly showed that the floors did not fail and that, therefore, pancaking was not possible.14 NIST more succinctly stated this again in its June 2005 draft report, saying: "The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th."15
.
I have posted for a you a few times now the NIST FAQ where they state that “NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse,”
Perhaps; we're talking pre collapse though. .
Clearly you weren’t when you said. “Explosives could certainly have removed it during collapse, however.”
I've been debating here since August; the answers have been far from 'instant'. The fact that you can't seem to find any reasonable objections to the possibility that thermite/thermate was used is, I believe, quite telling. .
I have yet to see any compelling evidence for thermite. What I have seen is a desire to believe in conspiracy theories which appears to be similar to the desire to believe in gods or ufos.
Tony has mentioned that some tests were done where no fireproofing was used at all, but that NIST refused to reveal the results, claiming it was just a calibration test.
Details Scott.
I believe you yourself have mentioned that in the Cardington fire tests, which apparently reached temperatures much higher then what the WTC office fires were calculated by FEMA to reach, no fireproofing was used, and yet, those beams didn't collapse either. .
There was no fireproofing on the beams and they reached temperatures which you refuse to acknowledge.
The beams did sag. Had the columns been affected by the heat then you would have had a situation closer to WTC.
A building is a building too.
Brilliant.
However, this doesn't mean that all office fires, or buildings for that matter, are one and the same.
If a fire fueled simply by some office materials reaches 1000C and the steel is marginally below that then that is very significant. It doesn't prove that the WTC fires were that hot but it demonstrates that it is possible.
The point isn't all that important anyway, as the Cardington steel beams didn't suffer collapse either. .
The beams sagged. One column which wasn’t completely protected started buckling when it reached 670C. All the columns were completely protected from then on.
Apparently neither you nor Headspin could find the raw data for this. However, even assuming it's true, the fact remains that even at those scorching temperatures, the Cardington steel beams didn't collapse. .
The beams sagged. One column which wasn’t completely protected started buckling when it reached 670C. All the columns were completely protected from then on.
True. However, Kevin Ryan backs up his claims with solid evidence, something that Mackey doesn't concern himself much with. From Jiff Hoffman's Review of
'A New Standard For Deception: The NIST WTC Report'- A Presentation by Kevin Ryan:
Ryan notes that steel temperatures lag behind gas temperatures in both time and magnitude, and that none of the official reports have performed thermodynamic calculations about the probable steel temperatures. Ryan's own calculations show that steel temperatures in the impact zones probably did not exceed 600 F.
I have given you physical evidence which completely contradicts and outweighs the calculations done by waterboy chemist Ryan.
. I actually now vaguely remember this. I don't see how it would take away from my arguments, but for that I guess I'd have to take a look at what shaman_ has to say.