'What about building 7'?

[WilliamSeger]

AE911T then mischaracterizes it as "this is what happened" according to NIST and attacks it as such. Fact is that NIST noted strong evidence that col 79 failed (EPH infalling) and then looked for a cause. The only cause which has any evidence to suggest it, is the fires and the fires near col 79 are the most probable to have done this.

Exactly right and well said.

Ziggi and gerrycan love the quote from the report that says the expanding floor beams pushed the girder off its seat because the expansion could not have been more than 5.5". If someone wanted to find fault with the NIST report, I'd say a good candidate is that this Reader's Digest summary of their conclusion is too simplistic, given all the other things going on. Before completely discounting the walk-off hypothesis (and pardon me for rehashing for the umpteenth time), what about the eastward displacement of column 79, or the induced torsion found in the Chapter 8 simulation? And if we still can't find enough reason to believe the girder was pushed off its seat, what about being pulled off the seat by thermal contraction, or just a general floor structure collapse, as suggested by the CTBUH? No, no, no, they say; if that one paragraph just says the beams pushed the girder off, then NIST isn't just wrong, they must be lying to cover up something nefarious. Their entire case depends on obstinate misrepresention of the arguments against them.

 

[Gamolon]

I am open minded to a different failure mechanism... It's odd that you would be so focused on the girder walk of when a participant is willing to entertain the possibility that another factor contributed more to initiating the collapses than the specific one that NIST concluded. .

It's easier for those in the truther community to hide behind the "provide evidence or admit your mistake" because all it takes is filibustering to defend.

It would take too much time, effort, and money to do their own models and analysis for another mode of failure or to show that supposed missing components would have caused the building to NOT collapse.

Why doesn't Gage take some of his vacatio... er... donations and come up with his own models/analysis? Let's just use the money to raise awareness by making billboards, tri-fold brochures, and traveling all over the place to do shows. As we can all see, those things are MUCH more effective at garnering new conspiracy believers than showing a comprehensive analysis that shows that the missing components WOULD have kept WTC7 from collapsing, fires DIDN'T do it, or the perimeter facade SHOULD HAVE resisted the plane impacts.

Go figure.

 

[JSanderO]

Obviously when anyone commits to a rather detailed sequence of events which lead to the observed collapses one is opening themselves to defend this with the energy inputs.

The truthers will never offer a detailed proposal showing where devices were placed. the type and how they were used/detonated. Their position is simply that they don't believe the buildings could collapse with assistance and NIST is lying and there must have been devices and an inside job and they look for and point anecdotal observations which they don't understand or mis read as the basis for the beliefs... a confirmation bias.

While NIST may have got the details wrong and even the location... they DID show that a single column failure in that design can lead to global collapse. I don't even know of the truth guys accept the that if some made column 79 at floor 13 go poof... the building would in fact completely collapse. All I've read is that 81 columns of 8 floors being taken out would result in the observed collapse.

 

[Animal]

Exactly right and well said.

Ziggi and gerrycan love the quote from the report that says the expanding floor beams pushed the girder off its seat because the expansion could not have been more than 5.5". If someone wanted to find fault with the NIST report, I'd say a good candidate is that this Reader's Digest summary of their conclusion is too simplistic, given all the other things going on. Before completely discounting the walk-off hypothesis (and pardon me for rehashing for the umpteenth time), what about the eastward displacement of column 79, or the induced torsion found in the Chapter 8 simulation? And if we still can't find enough reason to believe the girder was pushed off its seat, what about being pulled off the seat by thermal contraction, or just a general floor structure collapse, as suggested by the CTBUH? No, no, no, they say; if that one paragraph just says the beams pushed the girder off, then NIST isn't just wrong, they must be lying to cover up something nefarious. Their entire case depends on obstinate misrepresention of the arguments against them.

And to further that........each chapter of the report was authored by different teams. I noticed variations in style and terms used. I doubt they spent much time editing (or money) and were not expecting the incompetent nit picking. I read it as a generalization.......the models and simulations saw lots things going on......it is no big deal whether the girder was push, rotated off through expansion or contraction, the seat failed, the web failed, etc etc., the fact remains the probable cause is that girder failing.

I still find it comical that troofers and there pseudo engineers think that the girder would have remain in place with only a could inches of the flange bearing on the seat.

 

[jaydeehess]

Obviously when anyone commits to a rather detailed sequence of events which lead to the observed collapses one is opening themselves to defend this with the energy inputs.

Which is both what the truthers attack and the reason why they will not commit to a scenario of collapse themselves.

The truthers will never offer a detailed proposal showing where devices were placed. the type and how they were used/detonated. Their position is simply that they don't believe the buildings could collapse with assistance and NIST is lying and there must have been devices and an inside job and they look for and point anecdotal observations which they don't understand or mis read as the basis for the beliefs... a confirmation bias.

While NIST may have got the details wrong and even the location... they DID show that a single column failure in that design can lead to global collapse. I don't even know of the truth guys accept the that if some made column 79 at floor 13 go poof... the building would in fact completely collapse. All I've read is that 81 columns of 8 floors being taken out would result in the observed collapse.

TSz goes further to completely invent a 40th+ storey demolition of col 79 to explain the EPH.
Of course at least its a commitment, a rarity even for such detail. Its ironic though that while they attack NIST for the girder walk off they applaud TSz for his work when its patently obvious its simply a work of fiction pure and simple, nor does it become part of an actual collapse scenario.

 

[tsig]

You haven't even really answered anything I asked you. How far off was every connected column, beam and girder to the point of failure? If you can't answer that, you can't claim a specific number NIST should have met. You are cherry picking a position.

You. Have. No. Case. Bluster away, it doesn't matter. Nor does your fervent wish it were so.

Face it. Until you can say exactly where the column was, you can't say how far off NIST was. You have to do your own simulation to provide a target displacement NIST should have met.

The building is a system. It's not a girder and a column hovering in the air, like an angel.

Yes, only the beam was affected by the heat all the other connections were pristine.

 

[jaydeehess]

Yes, only the beam was affected by the heat all the other connections were pristine.

At the very least the girder walk off must be observed in isolation except for those points which may work or be construed to work , in the detriment to a walk off.

We have the recent example of gerrycan opining that K3004 might act in such a way as to reduce girder travel yet at the same time he will dispute the idea that column displacement (something actually seen as a result of the FEA) could possibly occur to assist girder walk off.

Seems that an FEA is a tool, an approximation, one of which illustrates girder walk off, or at least girder travel to an extent at which it is considered to have walked off.
Other FEA analysis illustrated that loss of col 79 by any means would lead to a progression to global collapse.

If AE911T wishes to demonstrate that the FEA analyses done by NIST are flawed and led to flawed probable scenarios for collapse then it behooves AE911T to put money into the issue and draw upon their supposed pool of expertise to research data inputs for an FEA of their own and run one. Its one thing to dispute the report, its another to do so by actually producing similar or better quality research to back up one's dispute. So far its paper napkin calculations and handwaving.

 

[beachnut]

... Both challenges refute NIST´s story. ...[/URL]

What a load of BS from someone who can't explain their story. Why can't you produce your story?

 

[Animal]

Oystein, of course you can see.From #4052:




That´s NIST´s collapse initation story: "once the girder had been pushed...6.25 inches"

- "nitpicking" the possible expansion is how one assumption is challenged, by pointing out that the 6.25 inch expansion is not possible.

Which you have not done. Making baseless claims and handwaving aside

NIST´s story rests on this one assumption and it stands or falls by it alone.

Wish that true does not make it so

Another challenge is pointing out that the missing stiffener plates which would render the 6.25 inch expansion useless.

Which you have not done. Making baseless claims and handwaving aside

Both challenges refute NIST´s story.

Only to troofers.......professionals throughout industry have rejected these claims.

Yet another challenge is noting that NIST never proved with any analysis that the flange would fold given the displacement of the girder, it is just an assumption programmed into the computer simulation.


I made the effort to point out to beachnut and others the difference between the modeling in chapter 8, 10 and 11. Several people on this forum had been conflating them.

I also left a question for you about this difference:

Comical, considering all the things that have been pointed out to you that you continue to hand wave away.

 

[gerrycan]

At the very least the girder walk off must be observed in isolation except for those points which may work or be construed to work , in the detriment to a walk off.

Yes. This is the type of isolated analysis that would be used to determine to what extent the girder would have to be displaced before it could be deemed to have failed. What's your estimate?

We have the recent example of gerrycan opining that K3004 might act in such a way as to reduce girder travel yet at the same time he will dispute the idea that column displacement (something actually seen as a result of the FEA) could possibly occur to assist girder walk off.

That's not at all what I said. I said that if the column shift was being taken into account then so should other factors such as the connection at the other end of K3004 having room to allow about an inch of expansion to the east. Do you not agree that this would happen?

Seems that an FEA is a tool, an approximation, one of which illustrates girder walk off, or at least girder travel to an extent at which it is considered to have walked off.

What's you estimate for the girder displacement required for walk off?

Other FEA analysis illustrated that loss of col 79 by any means would lead to a progression to global collapse.

So what other means could do it?

If AE911T wishes to demonstrate that the FEA analyses done by NIST are flawed and led to flawed probable scenarios for collapse then it behooves AE911T to put money into the issue and draw upon their supposed pool of expertise to research data inputs for an FEA of their own and run one.

That would be a worthwhile project I am sure.

Its one thing to dispute the report, its another to do so by actually producing similar or better quality research to back up one's dispute. So far its paper napkin calculations and handwaving.

And you know the kind of thing that could happen with this sort of thing on a paper napkin calculation. 11" could get mixed up with 1 foot, 6.25" could get mixed up with 5.5" twice, I mean with that kind of an investigation structural elements around the main focus point could even get missed.

 

[Oystein]

...
That would be a worthwhile project I am sure.
...

I have asked a short while ago, but didn't see an answer - sorry if I missed it:
Are you involved in the FEA project announced by AE911Truth as part of their "ambitious agenda for 2015"? If so, in what capacity? If not, do you know who is leading this effort, who is participating?

 

[beachnut]

...
And you know the kind of thing that could happen with this sort of thing on a paper napkin calculation. 11" could get mixed up with 1 foot, 6.25" could get mixed up with 5.5" twice, I mean with that kind of an investigation structural elements around the main focus point could even get missed.

Is that what happened to your story, your probalbe collapse theory on WTC 7, it is missing? 19 terrorists did 911, and 911 truth is stuck on a non-target building, a building with fires not fought was totaled, not the first time in history a building was totaled by fire. For 911 truth WTC 7 is the smoking gun of the inside job they can't explain, or support with evidence; so we are stuck with a shallow attack based on BS against NIST, when it is the fire 911 truth needs to refute, and plus support the silent explosives which are too feeble to blow out windows, leave evidence; or is gerrycan proposing thermite? We will never know exactly because you refuse to present your full up model of what you say did it. Why can't you do some original work, instead of BSing about NIST?

Are you still using the new approach? Has it worked on your friends?
http://911blogger.com/news/2014-03-07/being-smeared-911-truther-msm#comment-260973

Standing by for your story on what caused WTC 7 to collapse, I got fire, you got some Quixotic BS attack on NIST - when will the real fantasy be exposed; your story, with all your overwhelming evidence?

If you are gonna have a little melt-down then take a break for a bit Oystein, and come back when you feel up to some kind of discussion.

This sums up the kinds of effort 911 truth thermite/silent explosives fantasy cult has - nothing.
The best you guys have is paranoia about BS, you and DtD spew BS and opinions failing to make any valid claims, instead you have...

complex operations such as 9/11-- plus there are lots of additional instances by now – are assigned thereby either jointly or to whoever’s primary covert security agencies are best-suited or most convenient to execute the job. And, for post-mortem purposes, it matters little which outlaw in the global gang pulled the trigger. That designated outlaw may well have been the Mossad, but dual-citizens, observers, and bag men are not trigger-men or the “brains”

That is the problem, you can't simplify things to see fire did it. And you have some paranoid theory about some master race of people running the world, and you can't explain your theory, or who did 911.

You have a fantasy complex plot; and the reality based plot is too complex for 911 truth to grasp.

1. take planes
2. crash planes

Your theory you can't explain on WTC is a lie, no matter what you come up with, 19 terrorists did 911, and they did not bring the fantasy thermite, or silent explosives used in your fantasy version of 911 you blame on MIB, or some super group which runs the world. You bring nothing of value to the 911 discussion; only lies and BS hiding behind a Quixotic attack on NIST, which fails out of the box.

 

[jaydeehess]

Yes. This is the type of isolated analysis that would be used to determine to what extent the girder would have to be displaced before it could be deemed to have failed. What's your estimate?

Zoom, the point flew over your head.

That's not at all what I said. I said that if the column shift was being taken into account then so should other factors such as the connection at the other end of K3004 having room to allow about an inch of expansion to the east. Do you not agree that this would happen?

Zoom...

What's you estimate for the girder displacement required for walk off?

So what other means could do it?

Zoom, and zoom.

That would be a worthwhile project I am sure.

One which AE911T seems to have, a decade late, announced it will do. So far though, Nada. So far no monthly progress report either. At least so far nothing from any signatory of AE911T who is qualified to do this work.

And you know the kind of thing that could happen with this sort of thing on a paper napkin calculation. 11" could get mixed up with 1 foot, 6.25" could get mixed up with 5.5" twice, I mean with that kind of an investigation structural elements around the main focus point could even get missed.

Zzzzzzoooommm.

 

[jaydeehess]

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. Only truthers deem it relavent to shove that aside in favour of an fictional, unspecified, scenario involving thermite and/or explosives placed somewhere by someone, at some time before 5pm on Sept 11/01, coordinated by some method.

 

[DGM]

Only truthers deem it relavent to shove that aside in favour of an fictional, unspecified, theory involving thermite and/or explosives placed somewhere by someone, at some time before 5pm on Sept 11/01, coordinated by some method.

Is that not a theory......................................

 

[jaydeehess]

Duplicate

 

[jaydeehess]

Lessee, the fea Gerrycan wants done at the very least is one in which we look only at the girder connection at col 79 in complete isolation from the rest of the structure. It is to include every bolt, every item attached to the column at the girder that extends to col44.
We then heat all components using a fully detailed heat transfer algorithm on each piece, not forgetting the concrete slab of course. Now we move the girder in one direction and determine when and by what failure mechanism it fails. Then we redo it several more times and include various girder twist angles. Then we do it several more times through a range of heat inputs over time. Then we do it again for the range of load on the floor above.
Finally now we can know which detail arrives at girder failure.

Now we do another fea, this time we heat the entire compartment surrounding col 79 over several floors making sure to include every bolt, every structural bit and piece.

AE911T should have this ready for the 25th anniversary of 9/11/01, if they start now and assuming computing power continues to advance.

 

[jaydeehess]

Is that not a theory......................................


:

Edited to address your criticism

 

[pgimeno]

Yes. That's the trouble right there. These were taken to be infinitely strong in the model.^{[citation required]}In reality k3004 would expand and break this connection at C38 leaving NIST about another inch to find. Keep in mind that expansion is assumed to be only in the direction that favours NISTs hypothesis up until now.

Can you support the above?

 

[pgimeno]

That's the kind of reasoning that often results from starting with the conclusion and then hunting for confirming evidence. You don't seem to understand how weak your evidence sounds to people who prefer to go the other way.

That pretty much summarizes the last 25 pages.