Continuation: 'What about building 7?'

[Tony Szamboti]

2) ...What is - what was - the truthers original claim? Essentially we were (and should still be ) demolishing the original T Szamboti claim that NIST was wrong with its WTC 7 collapse explanation.

We are discussing remotely related details - exactly where T Sz et al want us to be - because the original claims by T Sz and recycled/plagiarised by others were:
(c) They claim that the NIST report was wrong on the detail of Girder Walkoff initiating Column 79 failure. They still haven’t proved that one NOR properly addressed the unproven assumption it relied on despite the main flaw being explained to T Sz several years back.

(d) They claim that since the detail is wrong the whole NIST explanation is falsified. That one is simply false logic - Szamboti et al know that and AFAIK they have NEVER addressed it. AND itis the killer point for their house of cards claims - Pepper letter and all other versions; AND

(e) Then they assert that errors in the NIST report are sufficient to warrant remedial action - more investigation. They haven't even tried to prove that bare assertion.


Meanwhile - on those details - surely there can be no doubt that WTC7 was a steel framed building which was on fire and the fires not actively fought after internal passive fire limiting devices had failed. And it collapsed.

Likewise many motor vehicles in the vicinity of those collapsing buildings were on fire. Wow! Astonishing stuff? Or astonishing that we let the Sz et al claque get away with the evasive derails?

So my position is simple:
The truth movement wants us discussing WTC7 because they think it makes it harder for us to prove them wrong;

They have made via T Sz a set of claims about alleged NIST errors and consequences they allege flow from the errors. All of those claims not proven.

And we are discussing details because that is where the truthers want us:

"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

My personal preference is to not let them jerk my chain even if the topic of speculation is interesting.

But that is my preference.

Hi Ozeco,
And I even hesitate to allow myself to be boxed into the "Defender of NIST" category! Because their report almost certainly has a flaw somewhere. To me the central question of "What About Building 7?" is only peripherally about NIST, and primarily, was Building 7 brought down by CDs or as a natural consequence of the unfought fires?"
You're right about some of the other stuff, like the jaw-dropping assertion that the Towering Inferno's collapse onto Building 7 could NOT have been the initiating factor for the fire. Even I came to a place where I said I can't argue this any more.
For me a more valid issue is their assertion that the perimeter walls could not have stood up at all after the asymmetrical interior collapse. You have to admit, it was a pretty phenomenal collapse, not the kind I (a layman) would have predicted. And can the whole wall stand up after an asymmetrical interior collapse and then fall so symmetrically? I'll be interested to read what Ziggi says about that.
But I feel your exasperation, as Bill Clinton would have said.

Chris, your commentary here is astonishing.

It is clear and obvious as to why the stiffeners were left off of girder A2001 and you simply wave it away as though it was a typo. You are not being honest with yourself or anyone else if you actually believe that. Either that, or you don't appreciate the gravity of what was done.

Your hand waving on how the fires actually started in WTC 7 isn't far behind.

 

[DGM]

Chris, your commentary here is astonishing.

It is clear and obvious as to why the stiffeners were left off of girder A2001 and you simply wave it away as though it was a typo.

So, why is it you're universally ignored by the engineering world? Are they stupid, cowards or are you not considered credible?

Look in the mirror and answer this question. I bet you won't. I predict you'll cop-out and claim they just don't know about it.

You claim every engineer you talk about this to is convinced. Looking at your support numbers, you don't talk to many.

Are you winning?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Chris, your commentary here is astonishing.

It is clear and obvious as to why the stiffeners were left off of girder A2001 and you simply wave it away as though it was a typo. You are not being honest with yourself or anyone else if you actually believe that. Either that, or you don't appreciate the gravity of what was done.

Your hand waving on how the fires actually started in WTC 7 isn't far behind.

Thermite sparks will not do it Tony, and no proof of arson or evidence of said arson.

I am looking into the plates on the column interesting the thermal expansion of the plates attached to the column when I run them though a simple thermal expansion program seem to distort the column if unevenly heated.

Wonder if uneven expansion of the side plates could result in aiding girder walk off by causing buckling and twisting it isn't much but it is there.

 

[Matthew Cline]

that's the dust that put out the fires in WTC 1 in the milliseconds before collapse ejected burning office material

Wait, what?

 

[chrismohr]

Thermite sparks will not do it Tony, and no proof of arson or evidence of said arson.

I am looking into the plates on the column interesting the thermal expansion of the plates attached to the column when I run them though a simple thermal expansion program seem to distort the column if unevenly heated.

Wonder if uneven expansion of the side plates could result in aiding girder walk off by causing buckling and twisting it isn't much but it is there.

Chainsaw, I remember an early article by Thomas Eager that put a lot of emphasis on the differential of the heat causing distortions in the steel beams and columns but I was unable to find a link to the specific article. It's possible I have it quoted in Part One of my YouTube video series, not sure.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Chainsaw, I remember an early article by Thomas Eager that put a lot of emphasis on the differential of the heat causing distortions in the steel beams and columns but I was unable to find a link to the specific article. It's possible I have it quoted in Part One of my YouTube video series, not sure.

Think of a bi metal strip in a signal flasher, I am looking at about an inch distortion but only if one side of the column is heated by radiant heat and the other side is only heated by conduction though steel no radiant heating.
That is at 350C and it's a crude thermal expansion program.

 

[pgimeno]

Chainsaw, I remember an early article by Thomas Eager that put a lot of emphasis on the differential of the heat causing distortions in the steel beams and columns but I was unable to find a link to the specific article. It's possible I have it quoted in Part One of my YouTube video series, not sure.

You probably mean this?

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.
​

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Thermite sparks will not do it Tony, and no proof of arson or evidence of said arson.

I am looking into the plates on the column interesting the thermal expansion of the plates attached to the column when I run them though a simple thermal expansion program seem to distort the column if unevenly heated.

Wonder if uneven expansion of the side plates could result in aiding girder walk off by causing buckling and twisting it isn't much but it is there.

There is no evidence either way but the arson situation is logically more likely as I have explained here on this thread in detail.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Chainsaw, I remember an early article by Thomas Eager that put a lot of emphasis on the differential of the heat causing distortions in the steel beams and columns but I was unable to find a link to the specific article. It's possible I have it quoted in Part One of my YouTube video series, not sure.

Chris, your explanations and the things you are willing to believe in are akin to the use of epicycles to keep the belief in an earth centric universe.

When explanations have to be as tortured as yours most people start wondering if they are on the wrong path.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

There is no evidence either way but the arson situation is logically more likely as I have explained here on this thread in detail.

No its not carbon combustion in air is more likely if you want to test your Idea yourself I can send you the plans to my blast cannon that tests the oxidation and other compounds in the buildings at the wind speed in the collapses.
It was simply a steel tube with an explosive driven piston, that tested the reactions induced in the compression wave that raced down the towers as the collapses occurred.

 

[ozeco41]

Hi Ozeco,
And I even hesitate to allow myself to be boxed into the "Defender of NIST" category! Because their report almost certainly has a flaw somewhere.

G'day!
You know my position - since my second week of posting in Nov 2007 I refuse to rely on NIST reasoning OR to confuse the two objectives of "What really happened?" AND "Did NIST explain it right!" My reasons for that stance should be obvious but many debunkers still fall for the trap. IF NIST said "it was CD" OR "It was Santa's custard!" either and both assertions
-- Would be false; AND
-- Neither would rewrite history - it wasn't CD nor was it Santa's Custard despite my Santa's Custard hypothesis being better argued than most truther claims.

The facts were set in history 9/11 2001 - no CD needed. No CD performed. That is the starting point from which truthers can argue and have significantly failed to argue for 13 years. Right or wrong NIST's reports have ZERO effect on historic fact.

To me the central question of "What About Building 7?" is only peripherally about NIST, and primarily, was Building 7 brought down by CDs or as a natural consequence of the unfought fires?"

I agree. (Although - given my preference for bulletproof logic - I'm even tempted to disagree with "peripherally" )

You're right about some of the other stuff, like the jaw-dropping assertion that the Towering Inferno's collapse onto Building 7 could NOT have been the initiating factor for the fire. Even I came to a place where I said I can't argue this any more.

That is one of my two main frustrations - YOU (and I) don't have to argue. It is Tony's claim for which he has burden of proof. Said burden not satisfied even to prima facie standard which is the threshold for discussion.

For me a more valid issue is their assertion that the perimeter walls could not have stood up at all after the asymmetrical interior collapse.

Given that neither Tony or any of the current "et als" are serious I'm not interested. BUT the big issue they are dodging around is the time frame. The Twin towers "Spires" stood for many seconds and they were patently obviously more unstable than a four sided box you have correctly identified. Ziggi in particular is relying on the inference that the facade could not have stood at all. Standing for 4-6-10 even more seconds is close to instantaneous falling given the issues of inertia involved. But I have no intention of doing the engineering since the more obvious issue is the debating trickery of evasion and denial. They have us derailed and I wont be supporting their derails.

And I won't even comment on those claims of "symmetrical" which is a sure sign of pure truther BS.

You have to admit, it was a pretty phenomenal collapse, not the kind I (a layman) would have predicted.

Mmm... There's a couple of issues subsumed in that. The fact of collapse was not surprising - BUT without hindsight or more detailed information it would not have been surprising if it didn't collapse either. Predicting the manner (mechanism) of collapse a lot harder than predicting the fact of collapse.

And can the whole wall stand up after an asymmetrical interior collapse and then fall so symmetrically?

Take care you are not falling for the truther set trap. It is FACT - true fact for the legal pedants - the whole wall DID stand up the way it stood up. The challenge for the truthers - not for you - is to show how CD left it standing and therefore why "natural" wouldn't have remained standing. Those two actually can be unlinked. BUT the truther implied reasoning is arse about - SOP for "truther logic".

I'll be interested to read what Ziggi says about that...

..after you filter out the snide comments and insults?

But I feel your exasperation, as Bill Clinton would have said.

We are in the declining days of 9/11 discussion. The nonsense level of claims just a feature of the "late stage" discussion. My "exasperations" mostly that there are few truther claims worthy of thought or reasoned response.

Tho I'm not much into "winning" I do count it as a win when JH, Ziggi etc ignore my reasoned comments whilst they comment on other members responses. Clear indication that I am hitting the target and setting the challenge too difficult for them.

I passed that stage with T Sz a couple of years back.

 

[LSSBB]

Chris, your commentary here is astonishing.

It is clear and obvious as to why the stiffeners were left off of girder A2001 and you simply wave it away as though it was a typo.

It is not clear and obvious, if it were you would have presented us with a simulation including them and reaching system convergence and also a significant difference in collapse. THAT is the way of demonstrating they were meaningful to the solution, not just insisting it is so and stamping your feet.

 

[NoahFence]

There is no evidence either way but the arson situation is logically more likely as I have explained here on this thread in detail.

Seeing as though your fanciful arsonists would have to somehow also be responsible for Shanksville and the Pentagon, I find your premise unlikely.
Care to fill in the blanks? How are they connected?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

It is not clear and obvious, if it were you would have presented us with a simulation including them and reaching system convergence and also a significant difference in collapse. THAT is the way of demonstrating they were meaningful to the solution, not just insisting it is so and stamping your feet.

Unfortunately his arguments are premised on unreason to begin with. Convergence of evidence is not something that can be adequately conveyed to someone who premises arguments on purely unfactual basis, be it delusion or otherwise.

The repetition has also gotten so old with this stuff that it feels pointless to respond anymore. The posts speak for themselves

 

[LSSBB]

Unfortunately his arguments are premised on unreason to begin with. Convergence of evidence is not something that can be adequately conveyed to someone who premises arguments on purely unfactual basis, be it delusion or otherwise.

The repetition has also gotten so old with this stuff that it feels pointless to respond anymore. The posts speak for themselves

I just reread my post and I was either sleepy or victimized by my autocorrect. I meant "solution convergence", not " system convergence ".

 

[ozeco41]

I just reread my post and I was either sleepy or victimized by my autocorrect. I meant "solution convergence", not " system convergence ".

I thought I was having brain farts.

...'coz "system" didn't fit.

However the related problem is convergent versus divergent reasoning - AKA "thinking".

Bottom line is that "truther reasoning" and "truther thinking' are oxymorons.

I often state is as "truthers cannot think - that is why they became truthers"

Key points:
-- they employ faith based "reasoning" AKA decide your answer them filter the evidence to support it.

-- they employ arse about reasoning - (overlaps with the above BUT) start from a detail "they" do not understand then try to argue from there. Rather than start from known true facts and dig down to necessary details;

-- and every truther claim AFAICS relies on reversing burden of DISproof.

The last actually a recognition "I cannot reason an argument to prove my point - I realise that many debunkers can think - so let's see if you can DISprove my claim...."

A compliment actually - "you can think - I can't" - tho' it is usually dressed up as an insult.

AND:
..whether or not they have actually defined the claim but that is drifting away from my main points.

 

[WilliamSeger]

There is no evidence either way but the arson situation is logically more likely as I have explained here on this thread in detail.

I'll try again to get you to explain that detail. When I posted this:

Here's what you "explained":

No fires were observed in WTC7 until nearly 2 hours after WTC1's collapse.

Any fires would have been observed almost immediately after they started.

Therefore, there were no fires in WTC7 until nearly 2 hours after WTC1's collapse.

Therefore, the collapse could not have started the fires.

The only other way that fires could have started is by arson.

Therefore, the fires in WTC7 were arson.

I know you don't like to spell out your logic, but is that about right?

... you response was this:

There are a lot of things supporting the premise of arson being the reason behind the fires in WTC 7.

You forgot to bring up the very limited chances for something hot actually coming from WTC 1 and starting fires on ten floors of WTC 7 while at the same time starting none in the adjacent Verizon and Post Office buildings.

Looking at (my understanding of) your reasoning in my post, there are a couple of severe logical problems: The first premise is not true (there were reports before 2 hours), and the second is very dubious (there are lots of reasons why the fires might not have been noticed immediately), so the first conclusion is simply not sound. But you use that conclusion, anyway, to further conclude that the collapses could not have started the fires. You then add yet another unsound premise -- that the only other way the fires could have been started is arson -- to conclude it must have been arson. You didn't comment on the obvious weakness of that argument, and instead tried to bolster it by saying it's unlikely that the collapse could have started fires in WTC 7 without starting fires in the Verizon an Post Office buildings. Presumably, that leads you to conclude that arson is likely, but that would be just a non sequitur, not a logical conclusion.

But perhaps I'm misunderstanding your logic, and I shouldn't need to be summarizing it for you, anyway. I doubt I'll have much luck with this, but could I prevail upon you (again) to explain your logic in detail so we can examine it for soundness? Thanks!

 

[Matthew Cline]

You forgot to bring up the very limited chances for something hot actually coming from WTC 1 and starting fires on ten floors of WTC 7 while at the same time starting none in the adjacent Verizon and Post Office buildings.

Is the "very limited chances" because:

1) A big flaming chunk of debris ejected from WTC1 would have rained down sparks (and/or smaller chunks of flaming debris) on its trajectory, which would have set fires to buildings between WTC1 and WTC2.

2) If WTC1 had ejected one big flaming chunk of debris, it would have also ejected more, which would have hit other buildings.

3) Something else.

And another question: do you think that a big chunk of debris from WTC1 did hit WTC, but it wasn't on fire, or do you think that no chunk of debris at all hit WTC7?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Is the "very limited chances" because:

1) A big flaming chunk of debris ejected from WTC1 would have rained down sparks (and/or smaller chunks of flaming debris) on its trajectory, which would have set fires to buildings between WTC1 and WTC2.

2) If WTC1 had ejected one big flaming chunk of debris, it would have also ejected more, which would have hit other buildings.

3) Something else.

And another question: do you think that a big chunk of debris from WTC1 did hit WTC, but it wasn't on fire, or do you think that no chunk of debris at all hit WTC7?

There was a limited fire zone in WTC 1, WTC 7 was 350 feet away, gypsum dust would have been smothering the limited fires in WTC 1 when it collapsed, and the fires in WTC 7 don't show up for nearly two hours after WTC 1 collapsed, and no fires are started in the Verizon and Post Office buildings next to WTC 7.

Given all that the logic shows it was highly improbable and much more likely the fires in WTC 7 were started intentionally using the WTC 1 collapse for cover. The ruse seems to have worked as long as one doesn't think too hard about it.

Additionally, there were fires on ten floors in WTC 7 and they were not on consecutive floors in most cases, so one big chunk of debris would not have been the cause for these multiple fires and it would also not be likely to cause fires if it wasn't from the limited fire zone in WTC 1.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

There was a limited fire zone in WTC 1, WTC 7 was 350 feet away, gypsum dust would have been smothering the limited fires in WTC 1 when it collapsed, and the fires in WTC 7 don't show up for nearly two hours after WTC 1 collapsed, and no fires are started in the Verizon and Post Office buildings next to WTC 7.

Given all that the logic shows it was highly improbable and much more likely the fires in WTC 7 were started intentionally using the WTC 1 collapse for cover. The ruse seems to have worked as long as one doesn't think too hard about it.

Additionally, there were fires on ten floors in WTC 7 and they were not on consecutive floors in most cases, so one big chunk of debris would not have been the cause for these multiple fires and it would also not be likely to cause fires if it wasn't from the limited fire zone in WTC 1.

Tony the idea of gypsum dust smothering fires is non sense, the fluid dynamics of the collapses, makes that idea impossible because gypsum dust desperses in air,.
There are also no floors or time for gypsum to settle on them, as the collapses race though the core first.
You physicist did not take the fluid dynamics into account, so the work is garbage.