'What about building 7'?

[Ziggi]

...NIST denotes the walk of many times as the most probable cause. That's because there is no other known proximate cause of col 79 buckling.

...Debating minutia is all that is left for 911T. Even if AE911T's contention that 5.5 inches only brings the girder to within about an inch of coming off its seat can we therefore say with certainty, as AE911T does, that this girder could not fail?

.

That´s quite the "most probable cause" with its 400C giving roughly 3 inches of expansion for a scenario that needs 6.25 inches according to the NIST with the seat plate modeled without the stiffeners plates. And more like 9 inches are needed when those plates are included.

 

[Animal]

That´s quite the "most probable cause" with its 400C giving roughly 3 inches of expansion for a scenario that needs 6.25 inches according to the NIST with the seat plate modeled without the stiffeners plates. And more like 9 inches are needed when those plates are included.

Wrong and wrong once again.......batting a hefty 0.000000000

 

[Ziggi]

Wrong and wrong.

Maybe some year troofers with grasp the 3D movement and stop thinking linearly. But then that would damage their religious beliefs.

The attempt to debate the walk off theory is being flooded more and more with irrelevant non-sense. Where are the mods?

It has been predicted that the prominent defenders of NIST on this forum will find excuses to avoid the discussion, and that their troll friends will attempt to bury the discussion with BS, in an effort to divert attention.

 

[Animal]

The attempt to debate the walk off theory is being flooded more and more with irrelevant non-sense. Where are the mods?

Wow....troofer projection.....nonthing new there......the irrelevant nonsense is from those that believe in the CD fantasy.

 

[Ziggi]

Thanks for this summary. It actually helped me to understand the NIST approach better. It appears to be a smart and valid approach.

Thanks Oystein. As for NIST´s "smart and valid approach" have you seen the analysis where the sheer studs are shown to fail given the official fire simulation in chapter 10 that the walk off story is based on?

 

[LSSBB]

The attempt to debate the walk off theory is being flooded more and more with irrelevant non-sense. Where are the mods?

They don't police nonsense, or the posts you have made exhibiting an apparently willful misunderstanding of the different computer analyses would have been dispatched to AAH long ago. Especially the repeated requests to show calculations. Have you any idea how many calculations were required? A hand calculation comparison is nearly meaningless considering the scale of displacements and distortions.

 

[Animal]

They don't police nonsense, or the posts you have made exhibiting an apparently willful misunderstanding of the different computer analyses would have been dispatched to AAH long ago. Especially the repeated requests to show calculations. Have you any idea how many calculations were required? A hand calculation comparison is nearly meaningless considering the scale of displacements and distortions.

In trooferville, TZ's paper napkin calculations are gospel.

 

[pgimeno]

Common pgimeno, this is one of the most embarrassing attempts to change the subject I have ever seen. Don´t try to change the subject with some rant about gerrycan.

Wow. And you say that as if you didn't bring up the matter of gerrycan yourself.

Some people here owe gerrycan an apology.

Just wow.

It is not possible to get more specific. If you find this somehow not clear enough as instructions then you better explain yourself.

I think the request was quite clear.

And I asked you to be more specific about "data and numbers." Give us a roadmap for how real engineers would have solved this problem in a different (and presumably more scientific) way. And maybe some examples of how real engineers have solved it differently (and presumably more scientifically) elsewhere, so we know your insistence has actual merit. Your inability to do so -- nay, your continued disinterest in even acknowledging that those questions were asked of you -- seems to be indicating that you want to impose a standard of evidence without being quizzed too hard on whether it's a good one.

Demanding calculations is absurd. LSSBB is explaining you why. Listen to him.

 

[pgimeno]

The attempt to debate the walk off theory is being flooded more and more with irrelevant non-sense. Where are the mods?

The walk-off theory was never the topic of the thread, to start with. But gerrycan tried to hijack this thread as he has done with others, and I jumped in to put an end to his nonsense. But this debate is off-topic here.

The mods are somewhat permissive, especially if posts are not reported.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Yes, but it is not the same one as shown is chapters 10 and 11. Don´t confuse the two. The walk off theory is shown in chapter 11 and it is based on the several hour long fire simulation shown in chapter 10, not the articial experiment in chapter 8.



No, the experiment in chapter 8 shows the floor beams expanding and pushing the girder westward until it bottoms out against the western flange of column 79, see figure 8-26. It is now firmly pinned against the western flange and this is why the girder cannot be pushed or rotated off the seat in the westward direction, and this is why the floor beams become stressed and buckle in this experiment. The want to expand more but the pinned girder prevents that from happening, so stress builds up in the floor beams until they buckle and jerk back the girder in the opposite eastern direction off the seat.
Whenever those floor beams sag or buckle their effective length is shortening which means are dragging the girder backwards to the east. Sagging/buckling beams cannot push the girder forward and off the seat to the west. Only expanding beams can push the girder to the west.

Hmm, somehow Chapter 8 left that out of their description. I thought you were only concerned with what the report actually says.

 

[DGM]

The attempt to debate the walk off theory is being flooded more and more with irrelevant non-sense. Where are the mods?

What violations of the MA would they be acting on? Unlike the forums you're used to, we can argue points contrary to your belief. If you think anyone here has posted in violation of the MA, report them.

You have read the MA, correct? No where does it say we have to toe the line or be banned (This is likely foreign to you). We are allowed to think and post for ourselves (also likely foreign to you).

You want to see the wild west? Check out Religion and Politics.

 

[Animal]

The attempt to debate the walk off theory is being flooded more and more with irrelevant non-sense. Where are the mods?

Here you go.....take your best shot
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25744

 

[beachnut]

The attempt to debate the walk off theory is being flooded more and more with irrelevant non-sense. Where are the mods?

Where is your analysis written up? Where is the math?
What is your alternate probable theory? Your "analysis" is a flood of nonsense with respect to engineering. Do you have any equations, or math you are holding back?

Why not pretend you won, and NIST is wrong; how will you refute CTBUH's probable cause?

Pretend NIST's probable cause is wrong, you proved it; what is your probable cause? Where do you get the silent explosives in your theory; a theory you can't detail due to... don't you have a probable cause?


You are good at the Gish Gallop of nonsense and quote-mining NIST. Is there a paper where you present this refuting NIST?
Are you going to publish your effort in a journal; which one?
Where is the math? It appears you are picking stuff from one section of NIST, and saying it does not match another sections; but it looks like you don't understand was was going on, or reasons engineers did certain things. I don't think you have any experience with engineering models. Do you think that is why you seem to support the CD fantasy from 911 truth?

In addition, each time you try to make a claim, you never explain why it matters, or show any work on what it means. You also missed where you made silly errors, which are pointed out by people you are "debating", but you seem to miss the point...

So far your effort to refute NIST's probable cause is not going well.


You can put posters on ignore; and you will not see valid questions; like what is your probable cause? etc.

The flood of irrelevant nonsense is the feeble non-engineering attempt to refute a probable cause, and not realizing if NIST is wrong, 911 truth's failed CD fantasy, remains nonsense.

Then, how will you refute CTBUH's probable cause.

This thread is about Deets' question; which was answered because the interior was collapsing, and the roof-line was at g for a short time, because there was no interior to stop the collapse.

Do you have a theory, and how does it fit with Deets' failure to understand free-fall for a short period is not grounds for deets' implied CD which he can't detail. Can you detail your theory?

Did you read the OP?

... and jerk back the girder in the opposite eastern direction off the seat. ...

Did you mean jounce, or what? Where in NIST do they talk about jerk...

 

[Dave Rogers]

WOW, how quick you are to forget. You have been refusing to get into the calculations to show how the girder could have been displaced 6.25 inches, but now you are declaring like Moses on the Mountain that the report CAN account for it.

This seems to me to be a good example of a classic conspiracy theorist's error, and I think the name for it is Appeal to Simplicity.

Let's see if I can describe the logical fallacy involved. I think it goes something like this.

P1: Argument A, which is simply stated, leads to conclusion C1.
P2: Argument B, which is highly complicated and requires considerable understanding of a complex situation, leads to conclusion C2.
P3: Argument A is easier to follow than argument B.
C: Therefore conclusion C1 is correct.

In this case, argument A is a simple calculation of the thermal expansion of a beam, and argument B is NIST's thorough finite element analysis which considers all the movements of the entire structure. It would be rational to assume that an analysis that correctly models the entire structure would lead to more accurate results than one that models only a single property of a single element, but this is rejected by the Appeal to Simplicity.

I've seen this one before. The best example I can think of is the argument that, since Leslie Robertson calculated on three sheets of paper in the 1960s that an airliner crash would not cause a collapse of one of the Twin Towers, therefore NIST's far more complex 21st century computer analysis must be wrong.

It seems to me that the recent history of this thread is just one big Appeal to Simplicity.

Dave

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

This seems to me to be a good example of a classic conspiracy theorist's error, and I think the name for it is Appeal to Simplicity.

Let's see if I can describe the logical fallacy involved. I think it goes something like this.

P1: Argument A, which is simply stated, leads to conclusion C1.
P2: Argument B, which is highly complicated and requires considerable understanding of a complex situation, leads to conclusion C2.
P3: Argument A is easier to follow than argument B.
C: Therefore conclusion C1 is correct.

In this case, argument

​

A is a simple calculation of the thermal expansion of a beam, and argument B is NIST's thorough finite element analysis which considers all the movements of the entire structure. It would be rational to assume that an analysis that correctly models the entire structure would lead to more accurate results than one that models only a single property of a single element, but this is rejected by the Appeal to Simplicity.

I've seen this one before. The best example I can think of is the argument that, since Leslie Robertson calculated on three sheets of paper in the 1960s that an airliner crash would not cause a collapse of one of the Twin Towers, therefore NIST's far more complex 21st century computer analysis must be wrong.

It seems to me that the recent history of this thread is just one big Appeal to Simplicity.

Dave

You just sumed up the entire truth movement, truthers always over simplifie the argument,
A good example of that is the false argument that solid iron microspheres equal thermite,
No they do not they only represent localized areas of higher than average oxidation, most
Likely do to work dividing fine metals and creating localized small metal oxidation reactions.
Those localized metal oxidation reactions mostly of Fe itself cause the formation
Of the solid iron microspheres.

 

[JSanderO]

And then of course their are the inaccurate observations... such as pools of flowing iron to steel exploded off the tower moving at 60 mph to distances of 600 ft.. or close to free fall collapse, or seeing wtc7 north facade kink as vertical not horizontal to name a few. If you don't observe accurately you can't expect to understand what you see.

 

[gerrycan]

The calculations are performed INSIDE the computer analysis. To recreate it, you need to perform the same computer analysis. To refute is, you need to perform the same computer analysis, and change the inputs, or demonstrate something is wrong with the software.

No, the calculation that set the required walk off distance for elements was NOT performed inside ANSYS. It was estimated by NIST outside of the program then applied to the analysis.

 

[gerrycan]

The attempt to debate the walk off theory is being flooded more and more with irrelevant non-sense. Where are the mods?

Exactly correct. This was an attempt at a focused debate with regard to girder walk off. Those here who agree with NIST made the blunder of trying to use the CTBUH to support their assertions without realising that the CTBUH totally disagree with them and NIST. Now they are trying to bury that fact in a blizzard of BS.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Those here who agree with NIST made the blunder of trying to use the CTBUH to support their assertions without realising that the CTBUH totally disagree with them and NIST.

Now we're into outright Truther fantasy world. CTBUH agree entirely with NIST that the cause of the collapse of WTC7 was fire damage, as has been repeatedly pointed out. Pretending that CTBUH "totally disagree" with NIST, when the disagreement is in fact about details of the collapse mechanism, is either delusion or lie.

By the way, gerrycan and Ziggi, if you really think the thread is being derailed, there's a button on the screen, the triangle with the exclamation mark below the poster's avatar and details, that you can simply press to report any post to the moderators. Please do so for any and every post that you honestly believe violates the Membership Agreement, rather than complaining "Where are the mods?" That's how the forum works.

Dave

 

[gerrycan]

Now we're into outright Truther fantasy world. CTBUH agree entirely with NIST that the cause of the collapse of WTC7 was fire damage, as has been repeatedly pointed out. Pretending that CTBUH "totally disagree" with NIST, when the disagreement is in fact about details of the collapse mechanism, is either delusion or lie.

By the way, gerrycan and Ziggi, if you really think the thread is being derailed, there's a button on the screen, the triangle with the exclamation mark below the poster's avatar and details, that you can simply press to report any post to the moderators. Please do so for any and every post that you honestly believe violates the Membership Agreement, rather than complaining "Where are the mods?" That's how the forum works.

Dave

Straight question. Does the CTBUH agree with NIST on girder walk off?