Only the most inept debunker could suppose that a critique of the NIST report could predate that report by 2 years, and then suppose that an analysis based on structural drawings could be a rehash of analysis that predated the release of those drawings by more than 5 years.
- Status
Sabretooth
No Ordinary Rabbit
I wasn't referring directly to the NIST report. Nice of you to assume.
To clarify for you, Truthers have been whining about WTC7 since NIST released it's Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster in 2006.
You haven't been at this very long, have you?
? What is annoying is the lie of CD, and more annoying, people can't figure out WTC 7 was destroyed by fire, as was One Meridian Plaza, and Windsor Building.
Gee, why was One Meridian Plaza totaled by fires fought, and same with Windsor.
The Philadelphia sound alike, is not as annoying as the pathetic lie of CD.
What is annoying, posting transcripts of idiots from Gage's failed group with no comment. Non-experts from Gage claiming/implying CD, that is annoying; why do they lie?
Where is your math? Your analysis? Not going to happen. How do you back in CD with silent blast-free explosives, or no product thermite? Which CD was it, silent explosives, or zero product thermite?
Where is your detailed explanation of the CD fantasy you support?
Where is your trigonometry. Show your work. When will you publish your work? Which journal?
The OP, we have dadeets, who claims the passengers on flight that crashed on 911, are alive, or never existed.
This is the best 911 truth has, fantasy dumbed down with BS and opinions.
To answer the OP, the interior of WTC 7 was collapsing for many seconds before the exterior started to fall. Total collapse of the WTC 7 mass taking over 16 seconds. What we have with 911 truth and dadeets, is failure to do the math and engineering; both which most 911 truth 'experts' are not capable of doing.
dadeets never offered anything other than his opinion. Deets worked for the government, and here he is saying NTSB products are wrong, and NIST is wrong - was all his work for the Government bogus too. Deets offered no substance, and no one in 911 truth will; all 911 truth has, opinions and fence sitting.
We have people spewing BS on 911 - that is 911 truth, the best of 911 truth.
Deets in 2013 makes a case for Flight 77 being a 757 that did hit the Pentagon. Did Deets wake up? He used math...
http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/docs/Deets_The_Pentagon_757.pdf
But includes BS, and does not debunk 911 truth inside job insanity.
Where are you Mr Deets...
http://physics911.net/pdf/alternate-theory-assessment.pdf
oops, it was most likely based on "evidence", a nuke, or ...
Nothing has changed, 911 truth remains a fantasy based on BS.
Another Deets project was
https://web.archive.org/web/20120214101928/http://www.7problemswithbuilding7.info/index.html
Which is now parked and earning someone money.
Will all 911 truth web pages be parked one day.
Last edited:
As to be expected no mention of him being on the register , I guess you didn't see that bit either. Is there anything you can get right? Can you ever admit you are wrong ?
Obviously the answer is NO. just out of interest why are you here defending the claims of AE911 yet not on behalf of them ? Last time you tried to work as a team with Tony or at least repeated what he said.
Which is a line of argument no Truther ever addresses, as it brings the absurdity of their 'theory' into sharp focus.
No, much better to obsess about the travel of a girder, or what time a witness got to work, or sub-pixel measurements in a video. That way you can pretend that defending your interpretation of that detail justifies continued belief in a theory that is clearly insane when viewed as a whole.
What register?
Yes, the fact that the seat plate under the girder was 12" as opposed to the 11" claimed by NIST. The fact that a 53 ft beam cannot expand by anything like 6.25" as claimed by NIST and also the fact that NIST left out some crucial elements in their analysis of their supposed initiating event at the column 79 connection.
Sure, we all get things wrong sometimes. What is it that you are saying I am wrong about exactly?
The claims that I am defending here were made by the independent group that I am a part of. I applaud the fact that ae911 have chosen to publicise these facts and try to get some accountability from NIST WRT the WTC7 report. Are you seriously claiming that NIST did not get these things wrong?
Last time? What are you talking about?
The draft report on WTC7 was released in 2008.
As far as the errors in the connection details that I am talking about, my group were only in possession of the structural drawings for a few weeks by the time that we picked up the errors that NIST made. We alerted NIST to these and they admitted a few of them but failed to address the implications of those errors. It took NIST 8 years to publish a report that had schoolboy errors in it. It took my group less than a month to pick up these errors. So at the point where we released our information with regard to NISTs errors in the WTC7 report, it would have been fair to say that we "hadn't been at this very long". You're kind of late with that claim though. Try to keep up.
The sex offenders register, it's in the first post in the other thread that you won't post in.
Yet again totally off topic, do you remember accusing me of calling Tony a pedo when my comment was completely the opposite. Obviously not or you would recognise and apologise for your mistake.
So you are defending and are part of Ae911 truth
Obviously you have forgotten your last visit to the then Jref forum, perhaps you could look through you own posts and find them.
Why can't you grasp the concept of posting in the correct thread ?
You are late, not kind of late figuring out 911, and that CD is a fantasy.
What did NIST say about the CD fantasy? Thermite?
Where is your paper published?
And after 13 years 911 truth has schoolboy dreams of thermite and CD, the inside job driven by paranoia and ignorance.
You found errors in NIST, but can't see the fantasy of thermite and CD. Is that irony or what. 13 years of CD delusions.
What did NIST admit? When will 911 truth admit CD and thermite are failed fantasies?
When it comes to CD, the schoolboy errors you failed to list don't seem to be a big deal. No matter how many errors NIST made, the claim of thermite and CD are orders of magnitude bigger "schoolboy" errors.
When you told 60 Minutes about the errors and CD, what did they say... oops, they laughed, or what? Is your CD claims with thermite or silent explosives. Why is 911 truth unable to detail the CD claims?
Got to love the ceiling tiles of thermite, now that and nukes; there are no limits to the disrespect for those murdered on 911 than the claptrap 911 truth manufactures.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/blasting_scenario.html
The level of nonsense from 911 truth has no bounds.
I have no interest in that.
I accused you of no such thing. I merely said it was in bad taste, and a bad analogy on your part. You can go talk about kiddy fiddling elsewhere, I am not interested in that.
No, I am part of an independent group, whos findings ae911 have chosen to support. I applaud that.
I'll leave that to you.
Maybe you should address the issue of wtc7, instead of obsessing about child abuse.
You might be dead right about the girder, the plate and collapse initiation at col 79. NIST might have been too lazy/busy/contemptuous to re-run their model with the absolutely correct information.
The catch, for you, is that even if all that is true then you're not a single step closer to justifying your CT belief. All you'll have done is score a small point against an organisation you count among your opponents.
Tell us why, when and how the building was rigged. Then look at your own proposals and consider how absurd they are.
These are matters of fact. The drawings that NIST claim to have based their analysis on betray these errors. NIST have failed to address these errors and their implications in any meaningful way.
They should indeed rerun the model with the correct elements present.
And what belief is that exactly?
NIST should thank interested parties for pointing out their errors, and amend their analysis appropriately.
When did I say the building was rigged? My contention is that NIST got it wrong, and given that they have said that this was an unprecedented event, they should, in the interests of public safety, find out just what did initiate the collapse of this building.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
In that case, you're posting in the wrong forum; this forum is for the discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories, not of structural engineering analysis. Can I suggest you start a thread in Science, Mathematics, Medicine and Technology?
Dave
What Dave said, plus comments from you like :
"Fire doesnt bring buildings like this down"
NIST, having been informed of the impossibility of their proposed initiating event, and their errors in misrepresenting the elements of the building have conspired not to be truthful and open about the demise of this building.
Well it never has before, even by Sunders own words, and the report into the cause of the wtc7 collapse is in error. The statement that "fire doesn't bring down buildings like this" is valid, and I stand by it 100%.
The problem that you have here, is that you can't attack me as being part of ae911, and you cannot attack me for claiming CD. You are being forced to address the technical issues, and you don't like it.
Tough.
Your disingenuousness fools nobody. Meanwhile if you believe it wasn't fire that caused the collapse then what do you believe did cause it?
I believe that the investigation into the collapse of WTC7 by NIST has not got to the bottom of what brought down building 7. If indeed it was fire that caused the building to collapse, then we need to have an open and transparent investigation into this in order to ensure public safety.
NIST knew about the stiffener plates, they knew that the seat plate was wider than they said it was, yet they have chosen not to amend their analysis accordingly.
If someone gives me an explanation as to how fire caused this collapse, I am open minded enough to take that on board. That is yet to happen, and in the absence of such an explanation, it is not surprising that alternative theories such as CD thrive.
Do you think that NIST did a competent job?
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 1,871
Here’s a partial list of what you are wrong about:
1. The beams can expand more than 6.25” due to temperatures greater than 600C. NIST’s 16 floor Fire Dynamics Simulator showed much greater temperatures than 600C.
2. The belief that after the fire flames have moved on the steel temperatures don’t remain high. NIST’s FDS modeling shows elevated atmospheric temperatures in the fire floor areas for much longer periods than 15 minutes, continuing to damage the steel.
3. Insulting NIST engineers and scientists for leaving out in the simplified one floor model the two stiffeners at the 13th floor column 79 girder and the stiffeners at the northern beam, but neglecting to mention that in the simplified one story model they made that northern beam larger than the one in the plans; neglecting to mention that they had those northern beam stiffeners in the 16 floor ANSYS collapse model; neglecting to mention that in the simplified one floor model they intentionally left out seat failure by adding stiffeners not in the plans, under the girder seat; neglecting to mention that in the one floor model NIST intentionally left out eastward lateral displacement of column 79 that was observed in the 16 floor FEA model. Repeatedly neglecting to mention this evidence that disproves your claims is known as confirmation bias.
4. The belief that the girder can only “walk off” by having the beams only push laterally and ignoring twisting of the girder by the beams. NIST shows the “walking off” failure of the column 79-44 13 th floor girder due to displacement by lateral torsional buckling. This buckling mechanism is described in detail and with figures in their report.
5. The belief that the fire could not have collapsed WTC7. There is no evidence that fire could not have collapsed WTC7, nor is there any evidence that anything other than fire explains how WTC7 collapsed.
Name-calling NIST engineers and scientists by incompetents is insolent libel.
- Status