pro-"official conspiracy theory" videos/books ?

[StrafingMoose]

Hi!

Has any of you seen books/videos that actually defend the official conspiracy theory out there? (Other than the 9/11 Omission) Not indirectly, but directly.

We have tons of videos/books trying to explain another theory or punch holes in the OCT but I have yet to see apologist material.

I'm aware of a few counter-arguments to alternative CT's, of course, but I'm just interested in the arguments that could be found in such a melting pot.

One of the best example I could give is Fahrenheit 9/11 VS Unfahrenheit 9/11 (not sure of the name of the 2nd, but there was a video that directly dealt with Moore's film, "debunking" it).

Thanks.

[LARED]

1. There is quite a substantial amount of work on the "pro" side

http://wtc.nist.gov/

http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm

The first link is highly recommended reading. The work is well done by experts in their field. Something that cannot be said about the CT side.

[petgoat]

2. NIST is well done?

When their computer model does not compute or model because it's
truncated in space and time and thus assumes what it purports to prove?

When they draw pretty multi-color temperature graphs supported by
absolutely no data?

When they conclude the steel was weakened by heat despite the fact
that their core steel samples show no heating above 250 degrees C?

When they ignore the FEMA Appendix C report of the mysterious
high-temperature erosion of the WTC7 steel?

It's "well done" only if you don't read it. It's "well done" like
the Warren Report is well done.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/

[LARED]

3. Seriously

If you are going to comment on the NIST reports, you should refrain from misrepresenting them.

[petgoat]

4. If you're going to claim I misrepresented, then you should back

up your claim. The NIST report is an insult to our intelligence.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hack89]

7. Will you also ignore me?

because I think LARED is right. All you do with these personal attacks is further demonstrate the weakness of your beliefs.

[LARED]

8. A few comments

When their computer model does not compute or model because it's
truncated in space and time and thus assumes what it purports to prove?

The model is truncated in space and time, and you find this troubling? Are you expecting a continuous model of something as complex as the collapse of a 1100 foot structure? Really?

When they draw pretty multi-color temperature graphs supported by
absolutely no data?

The NIST has extensive data on the behavior of fires in offices. There was extensive video footage of the fires and they know with a high certainty what the temps were like inside.

When they conclude the steel was weakened by heat despite the fact
that their core steel samples show no heating above 250 degrees C?

So what? How many samples did they examine? Enough to conclude no core steel was above 250 C? Not hardly.

When they ignore the FEMA Appendix C report of the mysterious
high-temperature erosion of the WTC7 steel?

That has nothing to do with the report. They found an unexplained area experiencing eutectic corrosion. There a many pretty mundane reason this could have happened. If you're hanging your hat on that, you are hanging by a thread.

[petgoat]

9. comments

Are you expecting a continuous model

Why not? Does $20 million buy nothing but expensive handwaving? The
computer models the initiation of collapse; that "total progressive
collapse" follows is assumed rather than proved.

they know with a high certainty what the temps were like inside.

Pity they destroyed the steel that could have validated this putative
"knowledge". Brian Clarke's testimony and Chief's Palmer's radio call
indicate the fires were not that extensive.

How many samples did they examine?

You don't know? You're the one who claims to be the expert. I think it
was something like 275 steel samples.

Enough to conclude no core steel was above 250 C?

Enough to conclude that there is no EVIDENCE of heating above 250 C.
Usually destruction of evidence at a crime scene is a criminal offense.
That a politically ambitious former federal prosecutor countenanced this
is circumstantial evidence of something crooked right there. The steel
was stamped with ID numbers and the pieces of interest could have been
set aside. Instead they were destroyed in great haste.

<FEMA Appendix C> found an unexplained area experiencing eutectic corrosion.

Not corrosion. Erosion. High temperature erosion. In samples from both WTC7
and the towers.

There a many pretty mundane reason this could have happened.

Then you might like to explain them to the scientists who wrote the report.
A PhD fire engineer, a PhD materials scientist, and a PhD metllurgist. They
sure didn't have any answers. Their email addresses are easy to find. They're
at Worcester Polytechnical Institute.

[AZCat]

11. Re. computer models

There seems to be a misunderstanding of the current capabilities of computer simulations. Let me make this as clear as I can - it is not possible to accurately simulate something as complex as a building collapse over a significant period of time (such as the duration of the collapse). This is due to the limitations of technology and to the limitations of our theoretical models.

I don't expect this will change soon. Some workarounds have been developed (Monte-Carlo methods, for example) that allow simulations to be useful in predicting possible system behavior, but the ability to re-create a particular event is not available (and might not ever be).

[StrafingMoose]

14. Question...

What would a "model" do in this situation?

You basically feed a software to data (ranging from absolutely certain to less certain) you have and then having the software calculate and render graphically the results ?

[AZCat]

19. I think I understand your question...

but let me know if I have not.

Simulating events such as a building collapse involve several things. Since buildings are made up of lots of elements (or "bodies") first we have to properly model each type of body and how it responds to various changes in environment (static and dynamic stresses, heat, etc). This part isn't too bad up to a point - a lot of the relationships are quasilinear and pretty well understood, especially for structural members.

Where all this gets tricky is when we have to start modelling two things: how to predict failure (or large deformations) of a body or modelling the relationship between two or more bodies. These events are not usually linear and especially three+ body dynamics is highly nonlinear. This means that while we might understand the principles involved we cannot accurately simulate a particular sequence of events because small differences between the model and the actual events can create large differences in outcome. In fact, it is impossible to build a high enough resolution model to guarantee accurate simulation - it would require a computer that could hold information about all the various bits (molecules, sub-atomic particles, etc) and in the same states as they were during the actual events. That is impossible (see Heisenberg). This is why it doesn't really do any good to run a building collapse simulation beyond failure because it doesn't really tell you anything.

In my previous post I mentioned "work-around methods" that are used to make use of models of nonlinear systems. The Monte-Carlo method is simple but effective - the simulation is run a large number of times (large being dependent on how long it takes to run the sim) and the beginning state of the bodies in the model is changed slightly every time. This produces a range of outcomes, and probability distributions can be drawn from the results. An important caveat to this is that while it can predict (to some degree) the probabilities of various outcomes, it cannot rule out a particular outcome. Even though it may be improbable (or even within the result set for the sim) we all know that improbable things still do happen.

Let me know if you have any questions.
-AZCat

[StrafingMoose]

22. Thx...

I guess it can be summed up as a real detailed "ragdoll physics" engine you have in video games, but alot more detailed that needs to take into account even the molecules, atoms, etc. and instead of being applied to a human body model, it would be applied to a 100+ floor building ?

[AZCat]

24. That's not a bad analogy.

The physics in video games, even though it sometimes isn't very realistic, is still a physics simulation. A building model would have to incorporate similar sorts of rules for interactions between bodies (such as structural members) just as a video game does for the interactions between, say, a zombie and a can of paint (Halflife 2).

Object models in video games usually run in the thousands of polygons, but in a detailed simulation they can be several orders of magnitude higher - fluid dynamics simulations can use billions of polygon-equivalent pieces.

[petgoat]

18. So the argument seems to go like this:

Official: The NIST report is wonderful because it has all the wisdom from our
all powerful and all-wise computer.

CT: Really? What does the computer say?

Official: It says "bwawk bwawk bwawk."

CT: That's really dumb.

Official: Well what do you expect? It's just a computer.

[AZCat]

20. It's not the computer (see above).

It's our models - they cannot accurately recreate a particular event (such as the WTC Tower collapses).

Up until failure the model is useful.

[LARED]

12. Reply

Why not? Does $20 million buy nothing but expensive handwaving? The
computer models the initiation of collapse; that "total progressive
collapse" follows is assumed rather than proved.

Hand waving? Please, get your facts right. NIST did very good work in such a short time. The fact the you find the global collapse so mysterious only points to a lack of understanding on your part regarding how buildings work, not some great cover-up. As pointed out by AZCat it is not possible to create a model meeting your expectations, so be prepared to wait a long time.

Pity they destroyed the steel that could have validated this putative
"knowledge". Brian Clarke's testimony and Chief's Palmer's radio call
indicate the fires were not that extensive.

Putative? Wrong. There is nothing putative about the fire temps inside the structure. As stated dozens of times, the NIST has an enormous amount of data on how fires behave in buildings. They know with a high level of certainty what the temperature were. The testimony that there were areas (inside a building with 40,000 sqft per floor) where fires were not intense is hardly compelling in any sense.

You don't know? You're the one who claims to be the expert. I think it
was something like 275 steel samples.

I've never claimed to be an expert. And the issue in not how many samples in total they took, it is how many samples were taken from areas impacted and on fire. Far too few to claim no steel got above 250 deg C.

Not corrosion. Erosion. High temperature erosion. In samples from both WTC7
and the towers.

As usual, you display a lack of knowledge in these areas. Please read what the report says

A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion.

Here is the recommendations

The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.

The only answer they did not have was the source for sulfur. They were tasked with a metallurgical analysis. They did just that.

[petgoat]

17. ...

Please, get your facts right.

I did get them right. To model collapse initiation and then say: "And then
it just went boom boom boom--total progressive collapse" is hand-waving.

There is nothing putative about the fire temps inside the structure.

Then what is the authority for them? The fuel burned off in ten minutes.

They know with a high level of certainty what the temperature were.

Right. They're North, South, East, West. Near Tikrit.

too few to claim no steel got above 250 deg C.

You've got it backwards. NIST claims the steel got hot enough to weaken. They
have no samples to prove it. The samples that might have proved it were destroyed.
The burden of proof is on NIST. The steel was cool before the fires, the steel was
cool after the fires, and there's no evidence that it was heated above 250 C.
(Except that yellow-hot piece from the pile, but that's another story.)

you display a lack of knowledge.... read what the report says....
hot corrosion attack....making it susceptible to erosion.

Like I said. Erosion.


The only answer they did not have was the source for sulfur. They were tasked with a metallurgical analysis

Right. That's what I was complaining about. They could not explain the source
of the sulfur. They wanted to do further studies. The studies weren't funded.
And then NIST pretended the WPI samples did not exist.

[stickdog]

15. You're funny.

The model is truncated in space and time, and you find this troubling? Are you expecting a continuous model of something as complex as the collapse of a 1100 foot structure? Really?

Ummm, yes. Why the hell even develop such a model if you aren't going to see it through? It's like going to the trouble of making a model of the all the gravitational interactions in out solar system and then running it through just the next five years.

The NIST has extensive data on the behavior of fires in offices. There was extensive video footage of the fires and they know with a high certainty what the temps were like inside.

So you and they say. How does one take the temperature of video tape again?

How many samples did they examine? Enough to conclude no core steel was above 250 C? Not hardly.

So you are LAUDING the fact that NIST didn't examine enough samples to completely DISPROVE their claims?

{FEMA} found an unexplained area experiencing eutectic corrosion.

Yes, FEMA found this evidence of sulfidation on the ONLY TWO PIECES OF WTC metal that were ever extensively analyzed by metallurgists. And what was NIST's response? To NOT examine any WTC-7 metal whatsoever and make sure not to let any other metallurgists get ahold of any other WTC metal.

[libertypirate]

16. Actually your a dope if you don't think they have the computing cycles

to calculate such an event.

Just a couple of months ago the government purchased another supercomputer, this one is to be used to calculate the position of every atom in nuclear explosion so they don't have to blow up nuclear bombs to test one. Do you know what kind of model it takes to position every atom in a nuclear blast? I would only guess that this kind of a system used for dealing with billions of atomic reactions. I contend they could easily calculate the position of a couple of hundred thousand parts as they collide with the earth.

This system they just purchased I believe is to replace a model that about 6 years ago required the foot print of two football fields. They have the CPU time...

[AZCat]

21. I think you may be misinformed.

The simulation you speak of doesn't extend over a very long period - milliseconds IIRC (if not less). Multi-body dynamics isn't something you can recreate, although (see my post upstream) you can produce probabilities from simulations of such.

[LARED]

23. Actually no one was even speaking about computer cycles

So why bring it up?

This is not that hard. Nuclear reactions have been studied for years, and using quantum theory the behaviors can be predicted with good accuracy.

No one has studied how 110 story building collapse after being hit with a high speed jet and burning for an hour or so. Mechanics of failure is not based on well defined theory, it largely consists of imperially found low order relationships that have been developed over many years out of practical needs. Trying to determine all potential interactions between each element in the structure is not realistically possible with the knowledge we have.

[petgoat]

25. So what you're saying is--they don't know why it fell down.

The computer model is a red herring. They should have kept the steel
for study, but since they don't have it they'll give us the computer
model as a $20 million handwaving argument.

[StrafingMoose]

10. Thanks, but aren't these two compromised in a particular way?

Hasn't the 9/11 Commission claimed that the WTC towers' core was a "hollow steel shaft" when some people brought up the pictures of 47 massive core columns ?

Hasn't FEMA admitted in their own report that "the best hypothesis (fire/damage-caused collapse) has only a low probability of occurrence" ?

That's exactly what I'm searching for. People, books, videos on/of the alternative CT side will note these inconsistencies as suggesting a coverup - a lie.

I'm looking for what the pro-official CT people (in their publications such as books, DVDs, etc) have to say about the issues I wrote above.

There seems to be quite an imbalance between pro-official CT publications (not counting the MSM and the govt's own report) and alternative CT publications.

It might be because I'm not looking at the right place also.

[Grateful for Hope]

13. I notice these are government sites

Given what we know about the current administration...'nuff said.

[libertypirate]

6. Try the moonie channels discovery network and the re-history channel. /nt