'What about building 7'?

[DGM]

I would say that it does. As i read it, the CTBUH were more apt to look at the floor slabs and related failures.

They considered the contraction after the fires progressed to be important also (as does the NIST).

Again, why quote them when you don't agree with them?

Maybe it's time you actually have a workable hypothesis of your own?

 

[JayUtah]

...it would be a matter of due diligance for them to respond publicly, and go and check the drawings for these plates.

According to your judgment, due diligence required this.

So yes, this was a glaring error on NISTs part and one that they have an obligation to correct.

All in your judgment, the validity of which no one in the relevant profession seems to respect, and whose foundation you are strangely unwilling to lay.

Whether you're willing to resolve the dilemma or not, the reader certainly is.

 

[gerrycan]

I know their opinion and I agree with it. Strangely enough the NIST hypothesis doesn't differ greatly.

The Council does not agree with the NIST statement that the failure was a result of the buckling of Column 79. We believe that the failure was a result of the collapse of the floor structure that led to loss of lateral restraint and subsequent buckling of internal columns

So NIST say column 79, and CTBUH say not column 79.

 

[Animal]

What makes you think we haven't?



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?



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?

This is so much hamster on the wheel......
Kind of makes me miss the days of MS PaintFire

 

[JayUtah]

Buy a dog and bark at it.

I have a dog, thank you. And I also have written an essay which the two great champions of "broken NIST analysis" refuse to read and comment upon, even after having been repeatedly directed to it. It puts into perspective these alleged failures and errors. But something tells me you don't want them put into perspective.

 

[Animal]

Again, why quote them when you don't agree with them?

Because he really does not understand what they are talking about?

 

[JayUtah]

So NIST say column 79, and CTBUH say not column 79.

What does CTBUH conclude caused WTC 7 to collapse?

 

[gerrycan]

According to your judgment, due diligence required this.



All in your judgment, the validity of which no one in the relevant profession seems to respect, and whose foundation you are strangely unwilling to lay.

Whether you're willing to resolve the dilemma or not, the reader I certainly isam.

FTFY
Yes Jay, I speak for myself here. You should try that sometime.
If having published a report you are asked by one of the most highly regarded engineering groups there is about the inclusion of stiffener plates, it is reasonable to be expected to go and look at the drawings and see if the plates were actually there or not.

 

[DGM]

So NIST say column 79, and CTBUH say not column 79.

............and this floor structure was in support of what column?

They differ only on what failed first. You disagree with both, right?

 

[MileHighMadness]

I have a dog, thank you. And I also have written an essay which the two great champions of "broken NIST analysis" refuse to read and comment upon, even after having been repeatedly directed to it. It puts into perspective these alleged failures and errors. But something tells me you don't want them put into perspective.

JayUtah....link to essay, please...MHM

 

[gerrycan]

I have a dog, thank you. And I also have written an essay which the two great champions of "broken NIST analysis" refuse to read and comment upon, even after having been repeatedly directed to it. It puts into perspective these alleged failures and errors. But something tells me you don't want them put into perspective.

Well done and congratulations on the dog.
Perhaps you can tell it to "go find it"

 

[gerrycan]

............and this floor structure was in support of what column?

If you disagree with the CTBUH, you should go and ask them to clarify that for you.
http://www.ctbuh.org/london2013/Information/Contact/tabid/3696/language/en-US/Default.aspx

 

[DGM]

If you disagree with the CTBUH, you should go and ask them to clarify that for you.
http://www.ctbuh.org/london2013/Information/Contact/tabid/3696/language/en-US/Default.aspx

I don't, you do.

 

[beachnut]

So NIST say column 79, and CTBUH say not column 79.

Did they say thermite and the CD fantasy? Why bring up CTBUH which does not support the failed CD inside job thermite fantasy? Where is the CTBUH detailed report and analysis? Can you source it better? (this is old news, but what is the exact wording of CTBUH ideas - lol, not CD)

 

[JayUtah]

Yes Jay, I speak for myself here. You should try that sometime.

Do you speak for CTBUH? Do you speak for the community of structural engineers.

You believe NIST's analysis was gravely in error and that their findings based upon it should be disregarded. Your source CTBUH expressly stated that they do not believe their questions challenge NIST's overall findings. Your source expressly repudiates the Truth Movement.

...it is reasonable to be expected to go and look at the drawings and see if the plates were actually there or not.

"Reasonable" is again a matter of judgment. Sorry, you can't keep begging the question of your foundation for all this apparently superior wisdom.

 

[JayUtah]

If you disagree with the CTBUH, you should go and ask them to clarify that for you.
http://www.ctbuh.org/london2013/Information/Contact/tabid/3696/language/en-US/Default.aspx

You're the one claiming CTBUH disagrees with NIST in a particular way that supports your beliefs. It's your responsibility to show that they do.

 

[gerrycan]

Do you speak for CTBUH? Do you speak for the community of structural engineers.

No, as I have clearly stated. Do you?

You believe NIST's analysis was gravely in error and that their findings based upon it should be disregarded.

I think that it should be revisited.

Your source CTBUH expressly stated that they do not believe their questions challenge NIST's overall findings

.
Yes, they did not say that they believe that there was a controlled demolition.

Your source expressly repudiates the Truth Movement.

I also told you this a few posts ago.

Is it reasonable to expect NIST to look and see if there were stiffener plates on the connection given that the CTBUH had asked about the difference that they might have made?
I bet you dont answer that.

"Reasonable" is again a matter of judgment. Sorry, you can't keep begging the question of your foundation for all this apparently superior wisdom.

 

[gerrycan]

You're the one claiming CTBUH disagrees with NIST in a particular way that supports your beliefs. It's your responsibility to show that they do.

see the question you were asked above and try to answer it with a yes/no.

 

[JayUtah]

Yes, they did not say that they believe that there was a controlled demolition.

No, they said they did not believe their questions regarding the computer analysis would change NIST's overall conclusion.

I bet you dont answer that.

I don't answer begged questions. You've already told us this was a grave error on NIST's part. Now justify that judgment.

 

[JayUtah]

see the question you were asked above and try to answer it with a yes/no.

Begging the question.