The 9/11 Forum

Intelligent and evidence-based discussion of 9/11 issues

Skip to content

v

Welcome
Welcome!

Our vision is to provide a home to sincere 9/11 researchers free from biased moderation and abusive tirades from other members.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which only gives you access to view the discussions. New registration has been temporarily enabled; take advantage of it!

Two new WTC7 papers- Korol, Greening, et al

Request comments in preparation for publication regarding scientific and technical issues

Two new WTC7 papers- Korol, Greening, et al

Postby OneWhiteEye » Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:16 pm

Just in time for the 15th anniversary, there are two new papers on WTC7:

Performance-based fire protection of office buildings: A case study based on the collapse of WTC7

The collapse of WTC7: a Re-examination of the "simple analysis" approach


Authors include Korol, well-known for publishing "dissenting" technical articles, and our very own Frank Greening. Formerly our own, that is. Come back, Frank!

Don't know anything about the Challenge Journal, in which these are published, so I'll refrain from any unfounded derogatory speculation (imagine that!).

Started reading the first paper and am finding the discussion to be interesting and informative. There are some things in there which might benefit my work in pseudo-FBM applications, and a bit of similarity in approach for some aspects. Chainsaw, if you speak to Frank again, tell him I'd love to talk to him about efforts to evaluate large solution spaces with inexpensive computation and how he might be able to utilize the techniques for analysis.

I would not mind if Mukesh Nattarraja gets an author credit after all, so long as it's not boring stuff.
OneWhiteEye
 
Posts: 6176
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:40 pm

 

Re: Two new WTC7 papers- Korol, Greening, et al

Postby OneWhiteEye » Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:21 pm

From the abstract of the first paper:

Based on the parametric study under-taken, our findings were that the fire-protected steel floor beam, identified as the initiator of the cascade of events that followed, could not have done so, virtually under any circumstance.


Fighting words? Haha, pretty confident proclamation. Still reading to see how well it's backed up.
OneWhiteEye
 
Posts: 6176
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:40 pm

Re: Two new WTC7 papers- Korol, Greening, et al

Postby Chainsaw » Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:51 am

I will, OWE, I am reading the paper and can say I am not that impressed with it.
Chainsaw
 
Posts: 821
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:23 pm

Re: Two new WTC7 papers- Korol, Greening, et al

Postby OneWhiteEye » Mon Sep 12, 2016 1:10 am

I finished it. It was really short. There are some good ideas as starting points and nothing wrong with the work so far as I can tell. Overreach? Yes. By treating the system in isolation, an unacknowledged assumption leaves the issue of travel open. The error is in equating expansion with travel or displacement at the critical location, which can also come from displaced attach points elsewhere. This is simply a piece of the puzzle and not the final answer. In my opinion.

Rarely if ever when reading these sorts of papers am I very interested in the conclusions. More the process, and the bits and pieces I can learn. I saw a convenient source of reference material for one aspect of a simulation program I'm working on. See, I like the approach, if handled correctly. Where I'd do it differently is more elements to the system (more complex, but not too complex), parameterize everything, and run all possible combinations. They did a representative smattering and that was sufficient but along the way assumptions were made to hold things constant and reduce the number of permutations to check.
OneWhiteEye
 
Posts: 6176
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:40 pm

Re: Two new WTC7 papers- Korol, Greening, et al

Postby Chainsaw » Mon Sep 12, 2016 11:07 am

Yes it was a good paper except for the conclusions that were based on over simplified assumptions.

I don't think Frank will be coming back to the forum he has left most of the 9/11 debate behind him.
Chainsaw
 
Posts: 821
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:23 pm

Re: Two new WTC7 papers- Korol, Greening, et al

Postby SanderO » Mon Sep 12, 2016 2:49 pm

Probably a common mistake... looking for a single point of failure to explain a complex process taking place in 4D... with all manner of assumed data.
SanderO
 
Posts: 1998
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:29 am
Location: ny

Re: Two new WTC7 papers- Korol, Greening, et al

Postby OneWhiteEye » Mon Sep 12, 2016 6:16 pm

Not to sound like a marketing director pushing a product, but this is one of the reasons I have so much hope for the pseudo-FBM (against my inclination to acronym-ize, let us go ahead and call it xFBM for extended FBM). The situation of "all manners of assumed data" which normally act to undermine confidence in a conclusion can be addressed somewhat by abandoning the notion of a singular conclusion. Instead of locking down assumptions which can be called into question, allow those formerly fixed and axiomatic assumptions to be part of the variables and examine ALL possibilities.

Supposing the work in the first paper is correct, it falls short of a firm conclusion as stated because of the viability of those assumption. The alternate approach is to have work like this form part of a if-then table. If the conditions under which this study assume are true, then the results are correct. By evaluating all conditions, it's possible to enumerate the situations where walk-off occurs and where it doesn't. This leaves choosing which of the predicate sets are true in order to pinpoint an actual conclusion.

I'm comfortable, for the most part, not taking that last step unless it can be shown that one set of conditions is considerably more likely than all others, a situation which must emerge following such an exploratory study otherwise there's no reason to undertake the effort.
OneWhiteEye
 
Posts: 6176
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:40 pm

Re: Two new WTC7 papers- Korol, Greening, et al

Postby OneWhiteEye » Sun Sep 18, 2016 7:52 pm

I think it's safe to say that one should not draw any conclusions about Greening as a result of his participation in the paper.
OneWhiteEye
 
Posts: 6176
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:40 pm

Re: Two new WTC7 papers- Korol, Greening, et al

Postby ozeco41 » Mon Sep 19, 2016 4:40 am

OneWhiteEye wrote:I think it's safe to say that one should not draw any conclusions about Greening as a result of his participation in the paper.

So true.

It is a professional paper with a clearly stated and limited goal.

Within that scope it disagrees boldly with NIST. So what?

The risk arises if it is raised or referenced in the context of ongoing forum discussions of controversial issues - specifically "CD or not CD at WTC7" Because we can be sure that some - from either "extreme" - will read more into the paper than it claims. Or make more OF the paper that it warrants. Given that most current discussion of WTC 7 is about the Szamboti and Hulsey claims where both are playing false dichotomy arguments which most debunkers are not recognising.

(And I think - old farts memory permitting - I may have made that comment once or twice recently. :twisted: )

The Greening paper in that context is nothing more than another "here is one who got it wrong" paper. Which is not a valid basis for arguing what really happend. No matter how many "another one who got it wrong" proofs are presented they will NOT make Szamboti or Hulsey right.

So no need to paint FG with the same brush by applying the same errant logic to his paper. BUT.....wanna bet.....
ozeco41
 
Posts: 1313
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:03 am

Re: Two new WTC7 papers- Korol, Greening, et al

Postby SanderO » Mon Sep 19, 2016 9:41 am

The Hulsey conclusion is not an affirmative explanation or theory about the cause of the collapse. However declaring fire could not cause the collapse based on the study of one single location leaves very few cause possibilities.... certainly in the minds of the truth guys. If fire not THERE then why fire ANYWHERE? And jump to: fire could not collapse a steel building so... it was a CD and the analysis was a concoction of lies. a deliberate deception and cover up of the real cause which was CD and a false flag... crumbling the entire official narrative. NIST committed fraud and treason and we need to hole them accountable for it.
SanderO
 
Posts: 1998
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:29 am
Location: ny

Re: Two new WTC7 papers- Korol, Greening, et al

Postby Chainsaw » Mon Sep 19, 2016 10:02 am

ozeco41 wrote:
OneWhiteEye wrote:I think it's safe to say that one should not draw any conclusions about Greening as a result of his participation in the paper.

So true.

It is a professional paper with a clearly stated and limited goal.

Within that scope it disagrees boldly with NIST. So what?

The risk arises if it is raised or referenced in the context of ongoing forum discussions of controversial issues - specifically "CD or not CD at WTC7" Because we can be sure that some - from either "extreme" - will read more into the paper than it claims. Or make more OF the paper that it warrants. Given that most current discussion of WTC 7 are about the Szamboti and Hulsey claims where both are playing false dichotomy arguments which most debunkers are not recognising.

(And I think - old farts memory permitting - I may have made that comment once or twice recently. :twisted: )

The Greening paper in that context is nothing more than another "here is one who got it wrong" paper. Which is not a valid basis for arguing what really happend. No matter how many "another one who got it wrong" proofs are presented they will NOT make Szamboti or Hulsey right.

So no need to paint FG with the same brush by applying the same errant logic to his paper. BUT.....wanna bet.....

It shouldn't be titled the Greening paper as Frank pulled out of the work, they are simply giving him credit for the work done on a previous paper.
Chainsaw
 
Posts: 821
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:23 pm

Re: Two new WTC7 papers- Korol, Greening, et al

Postby ozeco41 » Mon Sep 19, 2016 10:07 am

SanderO wrote:The Hulsey conclusion is not an affirmative explanation or theory about the cause of the collapse.
That is one of the two key points that you and I have each made several times Sander - and we seem to have been ignored on at least two forums.

SanderO wrote:However declaring fire could not cause the collapse based on the study of one single location leaves very few cause possibilities....
That is only one astonishing aspect - AFAICS just about every alleged "debunker" persists in missing the key points. Not the stupidity of Hulsey saying it BUT AFAIK no-one other than you, me and ????? is there anyone else??? who has picked up the nonsense.

Hulsey says it is "not fire" - so he MUST mean "something else". But he hypocritically says he won't speculate on CD because he wants it to be "scientific". What a load of BS. If it is NOT fire what else can it be??? And his whole approach is antipathetic to the scientific method.

BUT my frustration is not with Hulsey's "mendacity" - rather with the debunkers who cannot separate the trees from the forests and miss the bleeding obvious false foundations of his claims. As always diving in to the details when the base setting is false. "Missing Jolt" and "Axial impact v tilt" revisitd.....

SanderO wrote: certainly in the minds of the truth guys.
I wouldn't limit it to 'truthers' - I have long doubted that a lot of debunkers are any clearer thinking than the truthers. Both "sides" are mostly made up of no value adding copycatting parrots.
ozeco41
 
Posts: 1313
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:03 am

Re: Two new WTC7 papers- Korol, Greening, et al

Postby SanderO » Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:23 am

[quote="ozeco41"],,,
[quote="SanderO"] certainly in the minds of the truth guys.
I wouldn't limit it to 'truthers' - I have long doubted that a lot of debunkers are any clearer thinking than the truthers. Both "sides" are mostly made up of no value adding copycatting parrots.



As you have written many times... the only difference in the two sides is that the "official narrative" is correct on the broad strokes.. such as hijack planes... and the "anti official narrative" is fabricated and leveraged from disbelief... Being on the right side for the wrong or no reason trumps being on the wrong side for no or bad reasons.

Personally, I think Greening really stepped in **** with this one.

What's with the hubris of these people who publish and preach and have web sites and write books and give talks with this sort of holier than thou meme?
SanderO
 
Posts: 1998
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:29 am
Location: ny

Re: Two new WTC7 papers- Korol, Greening, et al

Postby OneWhiteEye » Mon Sep 19, 2016 6:02 pm

Chainsaw wrote:It shouldn't be titled the Greening paper as Frank pulled out of the work, they are simply giving him credit for the work done on a previous paper.

This.
OneWhiteEye
 
Posts: 6176
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:40 pm

Re: Two new WTC7 papers- Korol, Greening, et al

Postby ozeco41 » Tue Sep 20, 2016 2:14 am

OneWhiteEye wrote: By treating the system in isolation, an unacknowledged assumption leaves the issue of travel open. The error is in equating expansion with travel or displacement at the critical location, which can also come from displaced attach points elsewhere.
Which - though expressed very differently - is the the error of false premise that I called T Szamboti on at the start of his "girder didn't walk-off" campaign.

THEN months of arguing details without ever resolving the starting point assumptions/ambiguity/lack of clarity. And me once again out on my lonesome calling T Sz for false premises whist debunkerdom at large wants to argue leaves on the bleeding tree.. Wrong tree and probably not even in the right forest.

And - as always between me and Szamboti - I suspect that he is so far out of his depth that he doesn't have a clue WTF I am prattling about. :roll:

OneWhiteEye wrote: This is simply a piece of the puzzle and not the final answer. In my opinion.
Yes.
ozeco41
 
Posts: 1313
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:03 am

Next



Return to Request for Comments

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests



suspicion-preferred