lördag 18 april 2015

Why hasn't Gage made a model of WTC7?

Richard Gage is almost certainly the most well-known architect who voices doubts about what happened on 9/11 and whether the "official story" was correct or not.

Given that he's an architect, I assume he has access to pretty powerful computer programs used in constructing models of houses he's going to build, or at least did when he was active with that. I don't know if he still does that.

Yet, he has never, as far as I know, shown that he has ever made any attempt to make a model of WTC7 and see if he could theorize about what went wrong that way. Why?

Further, he of course is the founder and leader of the organization Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Among the engineers, I know several of them are computer engineers actually. Not saying all of them are. How come none of them have done any simulation, at least one shown publicly so that many of us have seen it? I mean, that I don't know if any of them have made a simulation, but that it never got spread around so it reached me, but I have never heard one of them attempted this.

[edit: since I wrote this, I have heard that AE911T have posted models or simulations on their website, but not seen any]

If one is interested in the truth, as Gage and his organization obviously say they are, why don't they make a good model and simulation and try to make it similar to what we know about WTC7(which is less than we may wish)? I would be interested in seeing that, and I think it would show intellectual honesty to do that.

Looking forward to it...

10 kommentarer:

  1. The point about this is that if you want to work out why something has happened, why a building has collapsed for instance, then the first requirement is that you are are trying to work it out. Richard Gage and AE911 truth are not trying to work it out, they are actively engaged in trying not to work it out. They don't want it explained , unless the explanation involves explosives. They are a group of people campaigning against the idea that there is any explanation ,other than explosives. The reason they think this way is obvious from the first thing they talk about in their DVDs where they talk about 911, the invasions and wars etc. That's not the mindset of someone who is talking about science. Their objective is to undermine the causes of the 'war on terror' by demonstrating that there was controlled demolition at the WTC. That is not a scientific objective, it's a campaigning idealogical objective. They are saying to the audience ' if you believe in CD on 911 then you can undermine the case for these wars and all the deaths that have followed from them. You're not in favour of these wars are you? You don't want to see all these people dying surely? So ,who thinks the WTC buildings were brought down with explosives?.'
    There was a proposed 'High-Rise Safety Initiative' proposed in NY the objective of which was to learn the lessons from the collapse of WTC7. I think it's a bit ironic that this initiative was supported by AE911 truth when they are the people who for the last nine years have been fighting against the idea that there were any safety lessons to be learned from the collapse of WTC7. It was perfectly safe apparently, it couldn't collapse, it's impossible -it was explosives.

    1. Thanks a lot for your comment!

      Well, it's hard not to think that is why. but many look to him and his group. They are almost likely seen by many in the Truth movement as one of the few "stable" options and groups they have left to lean on. Because Alex Jones has lost a lot of credibility with the Truth movement and sadly several have died.

      but I again think many in the Truth movement look up Gage and his group. I think it would be fair of them to ask him and his members to use their expertise where it can be applied, namely in architecture! That is his area of expertise rather than policy etc. that he brings up as you wrote.

    2. First of all, Gage is not himself qualified to do this sort of forensice computer analysis of a structural engineering problem. No background in any of the relevant disciplines, an amatuer as much most of the general population.
      There is hardly any indication at all that the signers of his petition are doing any structured work towards solving any 9/11-related problem. Over the years, a handful have done limited work (Jon Cole and Tony Szamboti come to mind).

      However, AE911Truth writes on their homepage that they do plan to do a Finite Elements Analysis of WTC7:
      (Scoll down)
      "Be a part of our ambitious 2015 agenda

      1. New Research Initiatives -

      • Conduct sophisticated computer modeling of World Trade Center Building 7 to demonstrate, first, the impossibility of the collapse initiation mechanism put forth by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and, second, that a controlled demolition more readily replicates the observed destruction"

      (Note: They already know what the result of the analysis will be, before having done it! :D)

      In late January, they sent out a newsletter about this:

      "Working with a structural engineering professor from a major university and a committee of peer reviewers composed of renowned leaders in the engineering field, the goal of our computer modeling will be to demonstrate conclusively that NIST’s collapse initiation mechanism for WTC 7 could never have occurred, and, secondly, that the destruction we actually saw can be more easily and accurately replicated by simulating a controlled demolition.

      Once completed, this team of researchers will seek to publish their findings in top engineering journals..."

    3. Thanks a lot for the reply.

      Why do you say Gage is not qualified? He is an architect and I assume he indeed would be qualified. I also assume he has software in his job as an architect that could help him a lot in simulating this, but I don't know if that assumption is correct.

      Very interesting that they now will try to do this! Even if their conclusions have already been drawn beforehand like you point out, hehe...

      I didn't know Szamboti had done work that relates to this. He was in Ronald Wieck's Hardfire program I know. I don't know Szamboti's work. Maybe I was a little mistaken then in my blog post as I also wrote about the organization and not only Gage. Good to learn new things.

      I have seen some of Jon Cole's work, but they have been more physical I have thought, like trying to cut steel with thermite etc.. Well, he has dropped things etc. to test the physics, but I was thinking more of a computer model very similar to the actual buildings with correct physics programmed in and then "remove" columns etc..

    4. I think I remember that Tony has even done a little FEA himself, but wouldn't know now where to look for that work.

      The software an architect uses to design spaces for people and things is not at the same time equipped to do dynamic response of structural assemblies, and even if he had the software, he wouldn't have the education to employ it smartly. Architects go to (and MUST go to) structural engineers to compute if static loads and capacities are in agreement with building codes. Even most structural engineers are really only familiar with the static case of structures in their intact state, and know how to model dynamic responses to things such as high winds, earthquakes or fires only to the limited degree provided by codes and "best practices". The dynamics of a failing structure are the subject of highly specialized engineers with highly specialized software. I'd guess that no more than 3 or 4 dozend of Gages signers are near that sort of qualification and expertise (he has only maybe 80-100 structural engineers, and I'd guess that less than half of those have ever been concerned with such problems). As an architect, there is absolutely zero need to understand any of this. Architects must take care that they employ materials that conform to fire codes. That's all.

    5. What is FEA?

      Hm, OK. but I do remember Les E Robertson say something about them actually thinking about the twin towers' collapse prior to building them and that they basically had to do that. He didn't elaborate though. And I am not sure where he said it.

      You could well be right about that, but at the same time we have very complex games with amazing physics and graphics. OK, they may not always be scientifically correct always, but it ought to be possible to make. Just last year I saw a little cartoon-like app for Win 8 that had rudimentary physics programmed into it.

      but must not architects know about these things to know what material to use so the structure will keep up and not collapse? or is that a structural engineer's job you mean?

    6. FEA = Finite Elements Analysis. A numerical/computational modelling approach where large, continuous objects within which properties change gradually are modelled as being made up of many small, connected parts that each have a single value for each property.
      Think of a circle that is modelled as a chain of short straight lines. The smaller the segments, the more closely the model resembles an actual circle.

      So for example temperature gradients within a steel beam can be modelled if you think of the beam being divided into many small cubes; each cube has it's own temperature; and it's own stress, strain, etc.

      The more elements you have, the more finely you model the real thing, the more precise your result is going to get; but that is at the cost of computational complexity (it costs time and other cpmuter and human resources).

      The art of FEA is to make the model both computational feasible and fine enough to satisfy both objectives and costraints of your project.

      Architects don't do FEA to design buildings. For 99% of all structural problems they'll ever encounter, there is already a ready solution that you can look up in tables or compute from simple heuristic formulas. This wall has to carry X tons? Then the concrete must be of grade Y and be Z cm thick. The region is earthquake class A rathet than B? Then add C% (or insert material D every E meters to damp seismic waves...). Sometimes, their software will make suggestion for them as it has all the relevant tables and formulas stored. But they never go to the basics of modelling material and assembly behaviour from the bottom up from first physical principles like a FEA could.

    7. Thanks a lot for the information and insight. I didn't know all of this stuff.

  2. Den här kommentaren har tagits bort av skribenten.

  3. I heard what FEA is last night.