• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

'What about building 7'?

Status
Not open for further replies.
gerrycan said:
Take as an example the stiffener plates. You have tried to dismiss that issue in similar form before, yet the CTBUH asked NIST whether their inclusion IN THE DESIGN of the building would have prevented the collapse and NIST did not answer. This was even within the time frame for public response.
Do you consider the CTBUH to be reputable in the engineering world?
Click to expand...
What did the CTBUH see as the cause of the collapse? Obviously you don't side with them. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
Personally, I'm trying to sway him from looking at the problem in isolation. :boggled:
Click to expand...

Look, this is one small part of the building and I am not supposing for a second that even in the event of NIST throwing up their hands and admitting that they got it wrong, that would prove that the building did not come down due to fire.
What is being said here is that NIST in fact did get it horribly wrong and should correct their report accordingly and dismiss this issue as a likely cause of initiation of collapse.
 
DGM said:
What did the CTBUH see as the cause of the collapse?
Click to expand...

They disagreed with NIST entirely on their hypothesis and still do. They did not have access to the drawings of the building when they asked if the inclusion of stiffener plates on the girder might have prevented the collapse. They have not publicly commented as to the fact that it transpired that the plates were actually there on the girder and on the drawings, but not included in NISTs analysis.
 
gerrycan said:
What is being said here is that NIST in fact did get it horribly wrong and should correct their report accordingly and dismiss this issue as a likely cause of initiation of collapse.
Click to expand...

Rephrasing your claims in the passive voice does not remove the fact that this conclusion is your judgment, which is not widely shared among the relevant licensed profession. Explain to us why it isn't.
 
gerrycan said:
They disagreed with NIST entirely on their hypothesis and still do. They did not have access to the drawings of the building when they asked if the inclusion of stiffener plates on the girder might have prevented the collapse. They have not publicly commented as to the fact that it transpired that the plates were actually there on the girder and on the drawings, but not included in NISTs analysis.
Click to expand...
You didn't answer the question.
 
DGM said:
What issue? Not fire and damage?
Click to expand...

I would suggest that yourself and Jay go and look at the public responses that were made to the publication of the WTC7 report for yourselves. I think that they referred to the plates as "end plates" rather than stiffeners if you need to search.
I don't have it to hand or I would just post it.
 
DGM said:
You didn't answer the question.
Click to expand...

Go and ask them for yourself.
Go and read their response for yourself.

I don't speak on their behalf, but for the record, at the time that their comments were made, they were headed by some of the most respected engineers that there is, who have undertaken some of the largest building construction projects that there have been.
 
gerrycan said:
I would suggest that yourself and Jay go and look at the public responses that were made to the publication of the WTC7 report for yourselves. I think that they referred to the plates as "end plates" rather than stiffeners if you need to search.
I don't have it to hand or I would just post it.
Click to expand...
Why? It doesn't support your argument at all. Why bring up the CTBUH when they disagree with you?
 
gerrycan said:
Go and ask them for yourself.
Go and read their response for yourself.

I don't speak on their behalf, but for the record, at the time that their comments were made, they were headed by some of the most respected engineers that there is, who have undertaken some of the largest building construction projects that there have been.
Click to expand...

I know their opinion and I agree with it. Strangely enough the NIST hypothesis doesn't differ greatly.
 
JayUtah said:
It is your judgment that NIST erred egregiously. Have you been able to convince any sizable fraction of the relevant profession and academic discipline of this?
Click to expand...

I would personally judge that given the comments put to NIST by the highly respected CTBUH re stiffener plates, it would be a matter of due diligance for them to respond publicly, and go and check the drawings for these plates. After all, my own group found these within a few weeks of obtaining the drawings.
So yes, this was a glaring error on NISTs part and one that they have an obligation to correct.
 
Oystein said:
What a stupid game everybody is playing here.

gerrycan asks you what the color of the sky is.
People dance around it.
Why can't yoou just simply all state what the color of the sky is? I don't know and can't and won't assess whether gerrycan says "blue" or "green" - it seemns though very much like he says "blue" and wants everyone to repeat after him: "The sky is blue".

What's stopping you guys to say it?

The real issue is of course: In what larger perspective does "sky is blue" mean or prove anything? I am waiting for that discussion to commence, I think it can be interesting, but no one is interested.

I don't care what experience you have. If you think the sky is blue, AND that is irrelevant, say so. Both the "sky is blue" bit AND the "is irrelevant" bit.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Oy, I look at it this way. I participated in the Holocaust Denial thread, and watched Nick Terry take on a denier named saggy. Saggy would ask Nick to name "Just one witness to the gas chambers". Nick refused to engage. Why? Because it was all a game by saggy to win converts and drag out the rhetoric. He would say in recruitering converts that Nick "Couldn't name one witness to the gas chambers", and yet whenever anyone else stepped in and named someone, saggy or Clayton or whoever on the denier side would find some nitpicky flaw with the witness and trump that up.

The point by the conspiracist is to narrow the argument down to one point they think they can hold out on, and drag that out for whatever it is worth. They will brush off or refuse to address questions to their very premise.
 
DGM said:
I know their opinion and I agree with it. Strangely enough the NIST hypothesis doesn't differ greatly.
Click to expand...

I would say that it does. As i read it, the CTBUH were more apt to look at the floor slabs and related failures.
 
gerrycan said:
Go and ask them for yourself.
Go and read their response for yourself.
Click to expand...

What makes you think we haven't?

I don't speak on their behalf...
Click to expand...

You invoke them on your behalf. That requires you to represent them fairly and accurately. Specifically you have invoked them to support your notion that NIST's computer analysis was gravely in error, and that this grave error compromised the strength of their findings.

Was that what they actually said?

...but for the record, at the time that their comments were made, they were headed by some of the most respected engineers that there is, who have undertaken some of the largest building construction projects that there have been.
Click to expand...

And what lengthy investigation or peer-reviewed analysis did they undertake to support their questions regarding NIST? How many of those eminent practitioners participated in or subscribed to CTBUH's analysis? To what prior extent had CTBUH been involved in the forensic examination of structural failures?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom