scott3x said:
the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality.
You ramble on about “cartoon physics” (it is clear that you don’t know a thing about physics)
I know a little; I've certainly not seen any evidence that you know much yourself. psikey knows more then both of us but I don't see you praising him. Steven Jones was a physics professor at a university and I believe he could easily win a physics argument on 9/11 against Bentheman. I believe, however, that he might have explained what NIST is referring to by the 'physical reality' bit a bit more. I will explain it more in this post.
shaman_ said:
yet did you read that line?
Yes, I read that line. Apparently you didn't understand it. I'll try to explain it better. This time, however, I will quote what he said -before- the excerpt I quoted. He had quoted what I believe was a previous passage from NIST, also on page 142:
The Investigation Team then defined three cases for each building by combining the middle, less severe, and more severe values of the influential variables. Upon a preliminary examination of the middle cases, it became clear that the towers would likely remain standing. The less severe cases were discarded after the aircraft impact results were compared to observed events. The middle cases (which became Case A for WTC 1 and Case C for WTC 2) were discarded after the structural response analysis of major subsystems were compared to observed events. (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.)
After this, Steven Jones details what NIST did exactly in order to get the building 'poised for collapse' it "adjusted" the pulling forces:
Thus, for instance,…the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted… (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.)
Almost 40 pages later, NIST brings up the subject again, apparently believing that we've now swallowed their 'adjustments' and proceeds to detail what happens with such cartoon physics adjustments:
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.)
Steven Jones then rightfully derides their faulty methods:
How fun to tweak the model like that, until the building collapses — until one gets the desired result [the "reality" is that the building collapsed- NIST didn't attempt to simulate the actual collapse of the twin towers; it only got things to 'poised for collapse'- to achieve this they employed the cartoon physics I was referring to and which Steven Jones is trying to explain; admittedly it's not easy to do]. 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.)