Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

William Seger

(11,710 posts)
21. NIST described some of the "fiddling" they did
Wed Dec 2, 2015, 12:38 PM
Dec 2015

... which was indeed to "get the results they wanted," but what they wanted was to get the model to agree with known observations (e.g. the WTC7 east penthouse collapsing first). An FEA is not a magic simulation of the real world; it's just a mathematical model where ever input and every interaction between elements needs to specified by the model builder. The problem is, in many cases the input parameters are unknown. So, what is done is to vary the parameters, within the plausible physical limitations, until the model behaves in a way that matches observations. If it does match observations, that doesn't necessarily prove that the other things the model is showing are accurate, but if a model doesn't agree with known observations, there's no reason to think the rest is accurate. It's one thing to question how NIST went about that and how accurate their model is, provided the criticism is objective, but it's quite another to misrepresent what was done and then accuse them of complicity in a mass murder based on that misrepresentation.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

thanks for posting. looking forward to it. Check this video... wildbilln864 Nov 2015 #1
Sounds like the Prof is on top of things. JohnyCanuck Nov 2015 #2
k&r nationalize the fed Nov 2015 #3
I wonder how whitefordmd Nov 2015 #4
you are... wildbilln864 Nov 2015 #5
Thanks for the typo correction whitefordmd Nov 2015 #6
that depend upon wildbilln864 Nov 2015 #7
You're avoiding the issue.... whitefordmd Nov 2015 #11
No. They're not "my guys". wildbilln864 Nov 2015 #13
Look at the damned NIST report: dougolat Dec 2015 #28
"good enough" for what purpose? William Seger Dec 2015 #29
There you go again with that 'silent explosives' canard. dougolat Dec 2015 #30
The thermite hypothesis was invented by Steven Jones... William Seger Dec 2015 #32
To what NIST report are you referring? whitefordmd Dec 2015 #31
The study is already biased before it begins William Seger Nov 2015 #8
unike NIST wildbilln864 Nov 2015 #9
If the study shows that fire could have destroyed WTC7 William Seger Nov 2015 #10
I accept that now! wildbilln864 Nov 2015 #12
Very interesting William Seger Dec 2015 #14
nope! wildbilln864 Dec 2015 #16
Watch THIS video William Seger Dec 2015 #17
do you realize wildbilln864 Dec 2015 #18
And if they needed magical silent explosives to do that William Seger Dec 2015 #19
Silent demolitions? whitefordmd Dec 2015 #20
I doubt it would be silent but wildbilln864 Dec 2015 #22
Ok not silent, but concealed. whitefordmd Dec 2015 #24
the demos were not wildbilln864 Dec 2015 #25
I think I am getting it whitefordmd Dec 2015 #26
You Do Realize That Physics Do Not Support Such Nonsense ProfessorGAC Dec 2015 #33
well that's obvious bullshit! wildbilln864 Dec 2015 #34
Just curious whitefordmd Dec 2015 #15
NIST described some of the "fiddling" they did William Seger Dec 2015 #21
well that's more nonsense but wildbilln864 Dec 2015 #23
Why is that nonsense? whitefordmd Dec 2015 #27
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Creative Speculation»Forensic engineer/univers...»Reply #21