Total Building Collapse from a Single Column Failure

[beachnut]

And still you just don't get it.

I get it, the CD lies are in the 13th year of no evidence, and 911 truth will not be taking action with their special evidence (hearsay, opinions, and lies) to break the big story 911 truth has.

Fire destroyed WTC 7, totaled by fire like many building. Fire did it, and 911 truth's CD fantasy failed. I get it, 911 truth will not be presenting evidence to support a story they can't define. A story of fantasy based on silent explosives, and no product thermite. Where do they sell the stuff used in your fantasy?

Tony said don't trust anonymous people; are you anonymous? What is your claim, you failed to make a dent in the probable cause from NIST. What does probable mean? Does it mean it is, or does it mean it could be? What is your probable cause? Do you have a fake paper like Jones did?

13 years coming up, and no action from 911 truth, save the travels of Gage. Why have you failed to make a point to support the CD claims of 911 truth? The dog barking is your evidence?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

We can move onto the relevance of them once you have done that..

I'll volunteer to ask you something sincerely

What is the significance of the alleged omission? I ask because too much time was spent earlier between Tony and others arguing over pointless details and not enough on whether this level of detail - correct or not - has an appreciable effect on the conclusions the NIST reached.

My understanding is, that while the NIST has other criticisms on it's details, the general consensus among professionals is that the building collapsed as a result of the fires, and its vulnerability to progressive collapse was enhanced because of the building's specific design. I do not see a connection between the argument that the NIST omitted details to validate a particular collapse progression and the idea that this was some controlled demo, as far as I'm concerned there's none and Tony's been unresponsive to questions on that particular issue. Just wondering if you'd be willing to elaborate if asked, just more interested in your take, as opposed to what my impressions are towards the TM as a whole.

 

[gerrycan]

I'll volunteer to ask you something sincerely

What is the significance of the alleged omission?

I appreciate the sincerity, but the omissions and errors that were made by NIST are a matter of record rather than an allegation. That they exist in the WTC7 analysis is not up for debate.
When NIST supposed a 5.5in shift in the girder that was an unlikely and remote possibility. When they re-supposed that the shift was 6.25in that became impossible. Even given that amount of shift in the girder, the inclusion of the stiffener plates would invalidate the supposed failure.
In short, NISTs analysis could not have resulted in a failure as they supposed, so they are required to reconsider that analysis.
Every omission that NIST made around their analysis made their chosen failure mode look more likely. Whilst I would be quite prepared to accept that this is nothing more than just a series of genuine errors that coincidentally supported their conclusion, their refusal to correct their mistakes is a serious matter, and one that they should address in order to salvage some shred of credibility.

 

[LSSBB]

And still you just don't get it.

Not my fault. Maybe you should try a little harder, do a full computer simulation or something.

 

[beachnut]

.... Every omission that NIST made around their analysis made their chosen failure mode look more likely. Whilst I would be quite prepared to accept that this is nothing more than just a series of genuine errors that coincidentally supported their conclusion, their refusal to correct their mistakes is a serious matter, and one that they should address in order to salvage some shred of credibility.

It is like you are projecting at rates faster than free-fall, using the old silent explosives to aid the decent into the dark ages of woo. Whilst? WWSD

Every omission that 911 truth has made with CD and thermite has made their claims more dumb. Whilst I will never be prepared to figure out your next Gish Gallop, your attack on NIST will not help you prepare your failed fantasy for publication in an engineering journal. 911 truth refusal to present evidence had doomed all 911 truth claims to the bit bucket.

What will you do next year? Attacking NIST's probable cause does not make your CD claims come true. Is it thermite in your collapse, or silent explosives? Cat got your tongue?

You don't understand engineering, why is that? What engineering school did you go to. So far you have failed to use any engineering stink on your silly simple attack on NIST. Step it up and use some engineering stuff, you can do it. Wait, are you an engineer? I have not seen any evidence you took any engineering courses. Why is wrong with publishing your probable collapse story, theory?

 

[gerrycan]

Not my fault. Maybe you should try a little harder, do a full computer simulation or something.

I actually agree with that.
NIST should also perform such an analysis and account for the elements that were there in the connections as they do so.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I appreciate the sincerity, but the omissions and errors that were made by NIST are a matter of record rather than an allegation. That they exist in the WTC7 analysis is not up for debate.
When NIST supposed a 5.5in shift in the girder that was an unlikely and remote possibility. When they re-supposed that the shift was 6.25in that became impossible. Even given that amount of shift in the girder, the inclusion of the stiffener plates would invalidate the supposed failure.
In short, NISTs analysis could not have resulted in a failure as they supposed, so they are required to reconsider that analysis.
Every omission that NIST made around their analysis made their chosen failure mode look more likely. Whilst I would be quite prepared to accept that this is nothing more than just a series of genuine errors that coincidentally supported their conclusion, their refusal to correct their mistakes is a serious matter, and one that they should address in order to salvage some shred of credibility.

I'd consider them debatable but whether it'd be on topic is another matter and I don't have the interest at the moment in pursuing it (it's midnight, I don't feel like writing walls-o-text). I was just curious a bit on what you were arguing or the rationalization behind it and you answered that to my satisfaction enough to where I might take the time to go over it in a more appropriate setting later. I'm gonna take a break from this and deal with other things until my interest in the thread is piqued again.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

He uses his real name.

I would also like to point out that his complaint of anonymous posters is incorrect. We're not anonymous but pseudonymous. And in my opinion only a complete twonk uses their real name on the internet. {googles Tony Sz(google autocomplete: 3rd entry) and sees pictures} Oh! QED!

 

[beachnut]

I actually agree with that.
NIST should also perform such an analysis and account for the elements that were there in the connections as they do so.

I think Gage's thousands of experts should do that. Come on prove NIST wrong and your CD fantasy real. That would be rich.

Why can't you do it? Add some engineering stuff. Wait, did you graduate yet from engineering school? Did they teach you to attack other people's work, or to prove your claims yourself. Proving NIST wrong will not prove your CD fantasy right. Publish your claims now. What, you have no claims, you are only attacking NIST as your were taught to do in your Masters Engineering course. Gee, they left that out of my education. Why did they leave out the attack work part in my degrees? I remember doing research, but I did not attack other work, I prove my work, showed my results. Whereas you and 911 truth make up silly claims, don't prove much more than you don't do engineering, and then repeat the attack. Poor engineering training looks like it runs rampant across all of 911 truth famous experts who spew woo on thermite, CD, some inside job they can't define, and overall have zero evidence to back anything they claim. Guess all you can do is make up lies about NIST, cause we are not going to see real work from 911 truth to prove their failed CD fantasy. Carry one, mock the murdered of 911 with weak attacks on NIST, don't present your case, attack NIST. '

Who needs NIST? Right, fire did it, you lost this one, better luck with Bigfoot, use the same evidence, it worked for your 911 claims. What did "60 Minutes" say.

What was your probable cause? Explosives, fire, or thermite?

Where are you hiding your work, your simulation, your model for what happened on 911? Where is it? When will you publish? When will you take action and report NIST to 20/20, or some super news investigative reporting show, or paper? Never? When? never

911 truth, the do nothing movement of fake claims, and fantasy. Stuck on the fringes of news, seen as, okay, no names, but what do you call people who lie about stuff.

 

[LSSBB]

I actually agree with that.
NIST should also perform such an analysis and account for the elements that were there in the connections as they do so.

Why, because you don't like the conclusion?

 

[jaydeehess]

I actually agree with that.
NIST should also perform such an analysis and account for the elements that were there in the connections as they do so.

AE911T takes issue with the one already done. There is no call for a re-investigation from the ASCE or other large and well established engineering organizations. Thus, AE911T is responsible to support their own claims that have thus far been made on the basis of a percieved malfeasance on the part of NIST that no one else sees.

Does AE911T not have enough qualified personnel to do the job? Not enough money?

 

[jaydeehess]

The fact is that it can be shown that the chances of large hot debris being launched from a few fire affected floors, in a building which was collapsing vertically, with enough lateral force to make the 350 foot trip to WTC 7, penetrate it, and start fires, are virtually nill for one instance let alone ten floors.

Have you Shown this yet?

I think it is embarrassing for the CTs trying to generate a fairy tale, that the fires in WTC 7 were ignited by clandestine Spooks running about WTC 7 starting fires.

In addition I checked again, and yes, if I hit a steel nail with a steel hammer I can create sparks.
Having 30+years of experience in working with electronics I also know that electrical and electronic devices can catch fire. I even have a few instances of such devices doing so when subject to severe violent destruction. A device that is turned off has less chance of catching fire if it is then subject to a violent event than does one that is running. In fact the mere severing of electrical power, by cutting with a conductive material, in a circuit drawing current will cause sparking. If that cutting object remains in contact with the AC hot it will cause anything in the curcuit to get hot and possibly catch fire.

,,, and of course, hot material or burning material can, upon contact with flammable material, cause a fire. I also understand quite well that it does not have to be the object that breaks the window that is the one responsible for starting a fire and that once there is an opening other material can then enter that office.(even if its only half a second later.)

None of these MUST cause fires but the more probable the event is, the more probable a resultant fire.
The Post Office and Verizon were less impacted by debris from WTC 1 and thus this probability is less. WTC 7 had gensets that would have supplied power once street power was off.


No spooks or ninjas running about starting fires except in the imaginings of a few people.

 

[jaydeehess]

I would also like to point out that his complaint of anonymous posters is incorrect. We're not anonymous but pseudonymous. And in my opinion only a complete twonk uses their real name on the internet. {googles Tony Sz(google autocomplete: 3rd entry) and sees pictures} Oh! QED!

It was the fifth auto-fill selection when I tried it.

 

[pgimeno]

Whilst I would be quite prepared to accept that this is nothing more than just a series of genuine errors that coincidentally supported their conclusion, their refusal to correct their mistakes is a serious matter, and one that they should address in order to salvage some shred of credibility.

There lies your problem.

What you call "their refusal to correct their mistakes" is actually their refusal to entertain truthers to add meaningless details on an analysis that was simplified using sound engineering practice. They're not mistakes, they're simplifications.

You've been unable to back your accusations so far. No qualified structural engineer with experience in forensics has been able to date. Isn't AE911T full of these? Or what are they full of?

 

[jaydeehess]

what are they full of?

It will eventually be compost.

 

[gerrycan]

AE911T takes issue with the one already done. There is no call for a re-investigation from the ASCE or other large and well established engineering organizations.

I do not talk for AE911, but the call here is for NIST to correct their analysis.

Thus, AE911T is responsible to support their own claims that have thus far been made on the basis of a percieved malfeasance on the part of NIST that no one else sees.

Not the case - bare assertion.

Does AE911T not have enough qualified personnel to do the job? Not enough money?

I would envisage such an analysis being done commercially by an established firm in that area of expertise, not by AE911. Even in links provided by your good friends on this thread about FEA it is stated that omissions should be noted and quantified. NIST did no such thing with their analysis. They need to revisit this.

 

[gerrycan]

There lies your problem.

What you call "their refusal to correct their mistakes" is actually their refusal to entertain truthers to add meaningless details on an analysis that was simplified using sound engineering practice. They're not mistakes, they're simplifications.

More bare assertion "Sound engineering practice" would dictate that any omissions are clearly stated and accounted for in the analysis.

You've been unable to back your accusations so far. No qualified structural engineer with experience in forensics has been able to date. Isn't AE911T full of these? Or what are they full of?

More bare assertion. You do not and could not know this to be the case.

 

[jaydeehess]

I do not talk for AE911, but the call here is for NIST to correct their analysis.

The "call" comes from AE911T.

Not the case - bare assertion.

So for instance ASCE and CTBUH are calling for a do-over of the FEA? I had not heard that. Which established engineering community has called for it? None of them have. Only the recently created, single purpose organization AE911T is doing so. This is an organization that is far from exclusively for construction related engineering professionals, nor has any member published anything on this matter in a recognized engineering journal.

I would envisage such an analysis being done commercially by an established firm in that area of expertise, not by AE911. Even in links provided by your good friends on this thread about FEA it is stated that omissions should be noted and quantified. NIST did no such thing with their analysis. They need to revisit this.

Says,,,,,, no one of consequence.


Ok, then AE911T can contract out the work. I say go for it. You and/or Tony can come back once the results are in.

 

[jaydeehess]

No qualified structural engineer with experience in forensics has been able to date. Isn't AE911T full of these? Or what are they full of?

More bare assertion. You do not and could not know this to be the case.

What?? You know of such a qualified researcher and you have been holding out on us?

,,, or did you mean to say that neither pgimeno, or YOU, do not know and could not know this to be true?

If so,,,, flying monkeys, lower digestive tract,,,,,, etc.

 

[gerrycan]

I think it is relevant to ask if AE911T has tried to get investigative journalists on the case and "60 Minutes" is a heavy hitter in that regard.

Well, have you asked them?

AE911T has threatened NIST in the Pepper letter, with getting others to put pressure in NIST. Why not get a mainstream media investigative journalism team on board?

NIST need to re-evaluate their analysis because that analysis is erroneous. Their motivation should be accuracy and truth surely, not mainstream media pressure. They have already admitted the omission of these plates and their analysis does not account for them. Earlier in the thread, someone said that a full analysis would be required to justify the relevance of the plates. I agree with that, and it is incumbent upon NIST to perform such an analysis.