'What about building 7'?

[DGM]

Ziggi:

Thanks for posting, I find your work entertaining. I assume that's your intention.

 

[Ziggi]

I'll try to explain it to you once again. Hopefully it will eventually sink.

I don't need to show any calculations.

The calculations were done by ANSYS. NIST report on the results of these calculations. They are already done, and made with computers because they are far too complex to do by hand. That's the whole point of using ANSYS. They were made by forensic engineering experts. I am not a forensic engineering expert. Neither are gerrycan or Szamboti or you...

Ah dear P, you just said the report can account for the number. Your position almost changes by the hour, from making up stories about leverage effect and column displacement to show how NIST came up with the assumed 6.25 inch displacement, to refusing to talk about the subject when those stories have been shown to be false, to claiming that the report can account for the numbers, and back to refusing to talk about the numbers when that is challenged.

The claim that walk-off was impossible is based on the unproven assumption that, since NIST doesn't mention the column as a factor for walk-off, it happened after the walk-off. Here's some news for you: NIST doesn't mention it wasn't a factor either.

You can't prove your assumption without asking NIST.

Go ask NIST and tell us back what they said.

No, I have asked you from the start to include your alleged column displacement in your calculations for the sake of argument, to see if it could possibly account for the missing distance. It can´t, and this is why you lads refuse to go into this further.

That the 6.25 inch displacement is impossible just addresses NIST´s story with the missing stiffener plates. When those are included the assumed 6.25 inch displacement is irrelevant.

 

[Redwood]

Originally Posted by Ziggi
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.

I revived this thread some months ago after it had been dormant. I just wanted a guess from Truthers as to the fall of the East Penthouse: Given that columns 79, 80, and 81 supported the E.P. but were in the middle of rentable work space, how could the columns have been brought down by demolition charges without anyone noticing them?

Apparently, Tony Szamboti believes that charges were placed a few floors below the E.P., but that area was rented to Salomon Bros. Did some cubicle drone have to move his desk to allow placement of the charges?

I would think that the Secret Service offices or the S.E.C. offices on floors 9,10,11, and 12 would have been more promising. If so, I would expect that the area would have been off-limits to outsiders, even cleaning staff. If Truthers were serious, they should have interviewed the cleaning staff more than 10 years ago.

Maybe it's not too late? Perhaps Gage could add that to the list of things that AE911T will do in 2015?

 

[Ziggi]

I suppose the old saying about CT's is really true... the purpose of the CT is to bog the discussion down... I lament about the way both sides act but come on... this discussion was had a year ago, and gerry, et al have made ZERO progression. I suppose this answers the question I had, he didn't specify a year ago, and has not advanced any further on the discussion

Oh how ironic your comment is considering how this thread is being bogged down now by a flood of irrelevant comments from you and others to deflect attention from pgimeno´s inability to explain how NIST got its magic number. This is how this forum has managed to bog down the discussion for more than 6 years! Yes, the final report on 7 was published in 2008! If you really want to see the discussion progressing then stop changing the subject and make sure this girder 6.25 inch girder displacement story is either shown to be based on valid numbers, or not.

 

[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?
.

Care to comment jaydeehess?

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. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10514651&postcount=4161

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Yes, the final report on 7 was published in 2008! If you really want to see the discussion progressing then stop changing the subject and make sure this girder 6.25 inch girder displacement story is either shown to be based on valid numbers, or not.

Hmmm, I've explained to you already that I'm open to entertaining that idea that NIST focused on a detail too much; they are NOT omnipotent or totally absolute. Such was more or less the basis of the CTBUH's commentary. My question - in the interest of progressing discussion - was, what are the implications you're arguing? That seems like progress rather than changing subjects

Apparently, the answer to my question is that there is this fear that the discussion wouldn't hold if you dared mention inside job is the reason why the discussion is forced into this back and forth loop over the girder walk off.

The CTBUH justified its criticism of the NIST girder walk off with valid alternatives. Apparently the strategy being adopted by you and gerrycan is intended to avoid progressing to that point. That intent was put in writing. Which means despite your contention that discussions' being bogged by others, it's your argument that sees no progress. Why am I to give your case priority, if there's no intent to provide further explanation on your part?

 

[pgimeno]

No, I have asked you from the start to include your alleged column displacement in your calculations for the sake of argument, to see if it could possibly account for the missing distance. It can´t, and this is why you lads refuse to go into this further.

That the 6.25 inch displacement is impossible just addresses NIST´s story with the missing stiffener plates. When those are included the assumed 6.25 inch displacement is irrelevant.

Bare assertions, zero proof.

A group of forensic engineering experts say it can. A group of amateurs with no background in forensics say it can't. Who should I believe? Hmmm, tough...

 

[Ziggi]

Hmmm, I've explained to you already that I'm open to entertaining that idea that NIST focused on a detail too much; they are NOT omnipotent or totally absolute. Such was more or less the basis of the CTBUH's commentary. My question - in the interest of progressing discussion - was, what are the implications you're arguing? That seems like progress rather than changing subjects

Apparently, the answer to my question is that there is this fear that the discussion wouldn't hold if you dared mention inside job is the reason why the discussion is forced into this back and forth loop over the girder walk off.

The CTBUH justified its criticism of the NIST girder walk off with valid alternatives. Apparently the strategy being adopted by you and gerrycan is intended to avoid progressing to that point. That intent was put in writing. Which means despite your contention that discussions' being bogged by others, it's your argument that sees no progress. Why am I to give your case priority, if there's no intent to provide further explanation on your part?

You are dismissing the alleged most likely starting point for the collapse as a mere detail, and refusing to resolve this little detail because you are not sure where that might lead you.

NIST is basing its "most probable" case on a expansion scenario that gives roughly 3 inches of displacement and claiming it gets 6.25 inches. And the 6.25 inch number was made good by leaving out the stiffener plates which would change the needed number to something in the 8 or 9 inch category. This is what most people call fraud, and you might want to ask yourself why anyone would resort to that.

And when this sort of thing has been exposed agencies like the CTBUH take on a whole another attitude when looking into the report.

And perhaps it may occur to you that this sort of thing was not limited to the girder walk off story, but the whole official collapse story? IF you would concede how wrong the walk off story is, you would be forced to take other NISTian claims with a grain of salt, and see the whole report with a whole new set of eyes, including the alleged fire simulations, the assumed temperatures, the sheer stud failure experiment etc. But you won´t go there, and you can easily prove my point by continuing to divert attention from the resolution of the walk off story.

BTW: No one can make any judgement calls about "valid alternatives" based on the same faulty data.

 

[Ziggi]

Bare assertions, zero proof.

A group of forensic engineering experts say it can. A group of amateurs with no background in forensics say it can't. Who should I believe? Hmmm, tough...

You proved my point by ignoring the numbers yet again.

And curiously your defence yet again is appeal to authority and faith.

Nothing has changed since Dr. Frank Greening got disgusted of the old JREF forum several years ago. What he said about you lot was especially scathing because this is after all Bazant´s co-author in a paper defending the official collapse story of the Twin Towers:

I have worked as a research scientist in industry and academia for MANY years but I do not recall ever witnessing such an endless appeal to authority, by one side in a debate, as I see with the JREFers! Indeed, I find the JREFers more often than not coming across as dogmatic followers of a creed. Thus, ironically they have become a modern band of Inquisitors doling out their autos-da-fe to heretic CTists for simply having the temerity to question NISTIAN authority.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Are we there yet?

 

[pgimeno]

You proved my point by ignoring the numbers yet again.

Actually, you prove mine by resorting to the tactic of demanding a proof that can't be satisfied for various reasons already explained, trying to create the impression that we have no answer when the reality is the opposite, by narrowing the question to your own unsatisfiable demand, rather than providing proof of your own bare assertion that the column displacement can't possibly account for the missing distance.

And curiously your defence yet again is appeal to authority and faith.

Authority? Yes. An appeal to authority is only fallacious when misused, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority - otherwise it's a valid argument. An appeal to the authority of a group of forensic engineering experts dedicated to doing forensic engineering in order to write a report whose subject matter is forensic engineering, is perfectly valid. On the other hand, a bunch of amateurs, a mechanical engineer, and other unqualified people who have little more than bare assertions and uninformed conjectures... well, I wouldn't rely on the authority of those for this subject matter.

Faith? No, I don't start on the conclusions and walk backwards from there trying to prove them. That's your field of expertise.

Nothing has changed since Dr. Frank Greening got disgusted of the old JREF forum several years ago. What he said about you lot was especially scathing because this is after all Bazant´s co-author in a paper defending the official collapse story of the Twin Towers:

Not all you've been told is true. Greening's username was Apollo20. Now that you're a member you can see what really happened:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=117412

 

[Grizzly Bear]

And when this sort of thing has been exposed agencies like the CTBUH take on a whole another attitude when looking into the report.

This was the CBTUH's comment on the stiffeners and connections:

Adequately designed shear studs can play a significant role in the stability of
the structure under fire conditions, and the NIST study should not be taken to
indicate that failure of shear studs is likely, only that this was an assumption
within the model. It is unclear what the effect of a more accurate shear stud
model would have produced in the NIST study, and in the somewhat extreme
case of WTC 7 (given the multiple fire floors) it is unlikely that a significantly
different overall conclusion might be reached. However, in more typical fire
scenarios, shear studs can still provide a significant benefit.
It is difficult to understand why the top bolts of the girder would fail at
connection to Column 79. Such failure would mean the slab had moved
relative to Column 79.
The finite analysis model applied was limited (Fig 8-22), and this may have
restricted the ability of the model to pick up all the local effects around
Column 79.

One important question that should be addressed is “Did NIST review and
evaluate any cooling cycle effects?” If cooling had started after the bolts
connecting to Column 79 had failed, would the connection be stable?
It is surprising to see in-plane buckling of the beam as being a key generation
of the initial failure, since it would be expected that the floors would bend out
of the way on their major axis, combined with a local buckling of the bottom
flange, like those found in the Cardington Fire Tests.

Note the bolded. They already covered those concerns.

And perhaps it may occur to you that this sort of thing was not limited to the girder walk off story, but the whole official collapse story

It doesn't change the overall outcome, period. I asked you my questions in good faith because I thought perhaps you had similar or more stringent concerns than those expressed by the CBTUH. That's where nearly all of the criticism in the NIST report lay. The NIST suggested that the failure mode was a result of the girder walk off and thermal expansion. The CBTUH's question to that was whether the NIST considered other stages of the process which were likely to have had a greater effect on the building's performance. THAT THERE is worth some discussion. However, showing that NIST made an error at this level of discussion does not alleviate you of the burden to show that it was a complete fraud. In fact, your insistance to avoid defending your end game on this is little more than a massive shift of proof burdening.

IF you would concede how wrong the walk off story is, you would be forced to take other NISTian claims with a grain of salt, and see the whole report with a whole new set of eyes, including the alleged fire simulations, the assumed temperatures, the sheer stud failure experiment etc. But you won´t go there, and you can easily prove my point by continuing to divert attention from the resolution of the walk off story.

Just to remind you....

...when I approach a would be debunker and steer clear of claims like "inside job", "US govt complicity", and even "freefall acceleration and thermitic material", but just stick to "they got the report wrong, missed out elements and made errors and should redo their analysis" - there is no defense.

This strategy of debate is blind to the fact that the criticisms NIST faced in 2008 were not only valid, but also not so huge as to radically change the outcome of the conclusions. That groups would have concerns over building performance studies and believe the NIST could have done better in that respect is not an endorsement to the inside job angle, nor a release from your responsibility to support your angle. Going to have to do it at some point.

 

[jaydeehess]

[

Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post

...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?
.

Care to comment jaydeehess?

Comment on what? That AE911T hangs its entire critique on a missing inch?

It is STILL as true today as it was years ago, that the only researched, known proximate cause for the collapse of WTC7 is the unfought fires in that structure. It requires no belief in unseen magical devices planted throughout the building. It requires no fantastical schemes and spooks.

The failure of column 79 is evident. The unfought fires are evident. That column 79 was in the area of floors on fire IS evident. NIST knows this, the ASCE knows this, the CTBUH knows this, even you know this.

Care to comment on what is evident to support any other cause of collapse?

 

[Ziggi]

Actually, you prove mine by resorting to the tactic of demanding a proof that can't be satisfied for various reasons already explained, trying to create the impression that we have no answer when the reality is the opposite, by narrowing the question to your own unsatisfiable demand, rather than providing proof of your own bare assertion that the column displacement can't possibly account for the missing distance.

You refuse to get into the numbers and complain when we say you don´t have the answers. You also belive two contradicting things: that it is impossible to explain the number, and that the column displacment could explain it. Cognitive dissonance 101.

Authority? Yes. An appeal to authority is only fallacious when misused
.

And so far the only response to lack of data for a 6.25 inch expansion is that NIST must have it somewhere because it is NIST, and no-one here or in AE911 is qualified enough to doubt it.

Not all you've been told is true. Greening's username was Apollo20. Now that you're a member you can see what really happened:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=117412

Oh Whoa, "what really happened". This co-author of the paper supporting the offical collapse explanation of the Towers raised doubts, so you lot gave him bad names, maybe something like "twoofie", and who knows what else, maybe holocaust denial was thrown in for good measure. And of course the mods did not remove the sh## even though they are supposed to, because you lot did not know who the man was behind the name.

His attempts to reason with you are still on record so don´t try to bs us about "what really happened"

And don´t try to deny his characterization of you lot as snobby for NISTian authority while you embrace that position in the very same comment.

 

[Ziggi]

jaydeehess;10516246
Comment on what? That AE911T hangs its entire critique on a missing inch?

Comment on the comment you cut out, of course. An inch? Is this a reading comprehension issue with you, or just very poor math skills? Need a "roadmap" like Jay and pgimeno? Repeated just for you:

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. http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4161

 

[Ziggi]

This was the CBTUH's comment on the stiffeners and connections:


Note the bolded. They already covered those concerns.


It doesn't change the overall outcome, period. I asked you my questions in good faith because I thought perhaps you had similar or more stringent concerns than those expressed by the CBTUH. That's where nearly all of the criticism in the NIST report lay. The NIST suggested that the failure mode was a result of the girder walk off and thermal expansion. The CBTUH's question to that was whether the NIST considered other stages of the process which were likely to have had a greater effect on the building's performance. THAT THERE is worth some discussion. However, showing that NIST made an error at this level of discussion does not alleviate you of the burden to show that it was a complete fraud. In fact, your insistance to avoid defending your end game on this is little more than a massive shift of proof burdening.


Just to remind you....


This strategy of debate is blind to the fact that the criticisms NIST faced in 2008 were not only valid, but also not so huge as to radically change the outcome of the conclusions. That groups would have concerns over building performance studies and believe the NIST could have done better in that respect is not an endorsement to the inside job angle, nor a release from your responsibility to support your angle. Going to have to do it at some point.

Wow that´s a lot bs about everthing but what I asked you about: the fraudulent displacement figures, and the effect that exposrue would have on everyone that has or will in the future look into the validity of the report. And I said this:

But you won´t go there, and you can easily prove my point by continuing to divert attention from the resolution of the walk off story.

 

[beachnut]

Wow that´s a lot bs about everthing but what I asked you about: the fraudulent displacement figures, and the effect that exposrue would have on everyone that has or will in the future look into the validity of the report. And I said this:

Projection and BS; you have to show the engineering; when? You have the CD theory. You can't detail your CD theory. The fantasy CD theory remains unexplained, a lie started by old men who spread BS.

Zero engineering to explain the CD theory, 911 truth is the True NISTians, as they have to attack NIST since they can't explain CD. Then fail to realize it was not NIST, it was fire; how will you call fire fraudulent. Where is the logic in failing to present your probable cause?

As expected, talk, no math, no engineering, no paper, nothing.

Where is Jones? He left you guys with a big bag of BS to support the CD fantasy.

My best wishes to the 9/11 truth community. FYI, my main research focus at this time remains on seeking alternative energy sources for the benefit of mankind. ( From a Paranoid web site based on BS, woo, and ignorance)

Jones makes up lies, faith based followers left holding the bag.

Jones has no problem spewing the fantasy theory of CD...

The presence of pyrotechnic material in the WTC dust – along with other compelling evidences such as the free-fall acceleration of WTC7 – means that such an investigation and trial are necessary in order for justice to be served. The rubble of WTC7 was observed in a rubble pile on the footprint of the building; classic controlled-demolition style -- certainly not "dustified". Pushed by a few of us, NIST finally admits that WTC 7 fell with “free-fall acceleration” for over 100 feet, which requires that hundreds of tons of steel and concrete had to be moved out of the way via explosives. (from an anti-science web site based on lies and fantasy about 911)

Why can't you explain if you agree with Jones?
Where do your guys get the silent explosives for your fantasy CD? Is there magical place Jones found?

Explain your theory, with some engineering stink for effect.

How do you get silent explosives?
Why did the east penthouse fall into WTC 7? Why was zero steel found with iron from thermite fused to it? Why is zero steel damaged by high explosives, Jones and Gage say were used on 911? Why can't you answer the easy questions which you have to answer to have CD as your fantasy based on BS.

Where is Jones? Why has he dropped the biggest story since Watergate to play with over unity circuits? Why did Jones drop the lie of CD, to take up the BS he is now working on?

Can't believe you fail to support your theory, and continue a useless anti-engineering/anti-intellectual witch-hunt against NIST's probalbe cause. I don't need NIST, why do you? I want to see you present the MIB planting tons of explosives in a building burning? Are these MIB fire-proof? Like super-people. And since your fantasy thermite burns up at near 400 C, and office fires can reach way over 400 C, how did the thermite wait so long to work? How do you keep the tons of high explosives Harrit has in his fantasy from cooking off early in office fires - the office fire in the WTC towers had more heat energy than 2,700 tons of thermite/TNT, and WTC 7 burned all day long... do you guys ever do math?

Anyway, what is the deal with falling at g, after the interior was collapsing for 12 seconds? You do understand CD is a gravity collapse, because the majority of energy released, which is much more energy than the tiny amount of explosives used in real CD, E=mgh is the prime energy source for CD, thus CD looks like a gravity collapse; which means 911 truth first BS step in the Gish Gallop of endless nonsense, the collapses look like CD, failed out of the box due to the ignorance of what is the primary energy used to destroy buildings in CD.

When will the engineering stuff you promised show up? Where is deets? Jones? the old men in 911 truth have left the building.

Keep saying NISTian, it makes your lack of evidence dumber. You are the one who keeps pushing NIST, as your theory fails to be explained.

In your fantasy for WTC 7, what role did the 19 terrorists who murdered thousands have? The 19 terrorists would be laughing at how silly 911 truth claims are for their actions. It is sad 19 murderers figured out 911 before 911, and you can't even talk about your theory. Terrorists 3, 911 truth 0. Kind of sad to see any humans fall for the lies of CD, and other dumbed down 911 truth claims. 911 truth is making the idiot who did 911, 19 terrorists, look smarter with every delusional claim.

Why did the OP author have problems figuring out the collapse of the east penthouse means there was no lower support for WTC's roof-line?

 

[Animal]

He did not miss it, you poor thing, Animal. Pgimeno is, to his credit, not trying to bring back that fantasy about some floor beam creating a leverage effect, because this myth has already been addressed and debunked, a couple of days ago, on this very thread. The scenario you propose is impossible. You are the one unable to keep up, and one might propose that you should not talk about people "unable to grasp errors". Then again, you are the posterboy for the forum, so keep ranting.

Not even close to being debunked......but leave it to a fanatical troofer to make such a claim.

And wow......what a load of troofer projection...........typical <yawn>

 

[Animal]

You refuse to get into the numbers and complain when we say you don´t have the answers. You also belive two contradicting things: that it is impossible to explain the number, and that the column displacment could explain it. Cognitive dissonance 101.

Coming from someone that refuses to propose a complete scenario for the day, but rather claims "NIST wrong.....must be CD"

13+ years you have spent on the hamster wheel. LMAO.

 

[Animal]

Not all you've been told is true. Greening's username was Apollo20. Now that you're a member you can see what really happened:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=117412

Pretty common tactic for troofers......you can see the subtle attempted bullying here in this thread. I have had individuals threaten to contact my employer in the past. (Funny thing was I was a partner in the firm so I was the "meployer")
It is a sign of desperation on their part. They are not getting the converts.....like leaders of any failed revolution.......they must continue to convince their followers that the people will rise up any minute.