Merged Freefall is not evidence for Controlled Demolition

[DGM]

And if I have a chance at all here JREF, I know I do need to be accurate.

Factual is also important.

Just a hint, the list you copied from AE is not factual. Just so you know.

fac·tu·al
ˈfakCHo͞oəl
adjective
1.
concerned with what is actually the case rather than interpretations of or reactions to it.

 

[david.watts]

Factual is also important.

Just a hint, the list you copied from AE is not factual. Just so you know.

DGM, thanks. That helps. I am making a couple of points about NIST. (I know we have all discussed NIST and their report quite a bit.) But I have a couple of points that I believe are worth bringing up.

Are you saying the list is 100% not factual? I wouldn't think so. But if you or anyone would be kind enough to point out which items are not factual, it might save me some time. The ones that are not factual I will drop from my argument. They may not be the ones I was using anyway. Since this is not a "test," I would not feel like I was cheating. thx

 

[DGM]

DGM, thanks. That helps. I am making a couple of points about NIST. (I know we have all discussed NIST and their report quite a bit.) But I have a couple of points that I believe are worth bringing up.

Are you saying the list is 100% not factual? I wouldn't think so. But if you or anyone would be kind enough to point out which items are not factual, it might save me some time. The ones that are not factual I will drop from my argument. They may not be the ones I was using anyway. Since this is not a "test," I would not feel like I was cheating. thx

The list is irrelevant if you are making a point to support CD. You need to make the point, not just show that something NIST said is not quite right. This is where AE has no clue.

 

[ozeco41]

The list is irrelevant if you are making a point to support CD. You need to make the point, not just show that something NIST said is not quite right. This is where AE has no clue.

That is the central error or weakness of all truther claims David.

Showing that someone else is wrong does not make your argument right.

Recall I have said it several times (IIRC) in this thread and many times on this and other forums.

NIST conclusions are irrelevant. Even if NIST said "There was no collapse" OR "The collapses resulted from Santa's custard falling from the sleigh when Rudolph stumbled."

No matter what NIST said in its reports the FACTS of 9/11 collapses were set in place 9/11 2001 - long before NIST wrote.

So it is useless showing that NIST was wrong - they provably were on some details.

Nor showing that ozeco41 was wrong - I may have made an error or two somewhere in my - whatever - 20,000 plus posts.

The Towers fell on 9/11 AND it is highly unlikely that Santa's custard was the cause.

You have to demonstrate that there was CD - your claim - your burden of proof. By all means share the burden with the truth movement. But they have no proof - that is why they nearly always pass the burden to us to "disprove".

All that said - I will try to write you a two/three word comment on all your points. It will probably take a bit more to make it intelligible.

Give me an hour or so - life continues here in AU.

 

[ozeco41]

Here you are David - as promised.

NIST used numerous unscientific methods and fraudulent inputs to get the key girder to fail in its computer simulation.

Unsupported claims. Plus misrepresentation of valid modelling techniques.

NIST arbitrarily added 10% to the temperature results of its fire dynamics simulation (FDS)

Implied misrepresentation of valid techniques.

To get the shear studs on the floor beams to fail, NIST assumed high steel temperatures and applied the heat in 1-1/2 seconds over the entire north east part of floor 13. This method does not allow for heat dispersal or beam sagging.

What is the point - specifically prove that this detail affects the conclusions NIST drew.

NIST heated the floor beams, but not the slab. Since concrete expands at 85% the rate of steel, leaving this expansion out of the calculations of the failure of the shear studs is fraudulent.

Prove it makes a difference and stop propagandist use of emotively loaded words.

NIST failed to account for beam sag that would have prevented the floor beams from expanding lengthwise more than 4.75 inches.

Prove it and then show that it has significant effect.

Thermal expansion would cause the bottom flange to expand more than the top flange, forcing the beam to bow downward. The NIST hypothesis does not allow for downward bowing.

Ditto

9/11 researcher David Cole went through the hundreds of drawings and found drawing 1091 which shows the girder seat was 12 inches wide (as noted above), not the 11 inches claimed in the final report. He also found drawing 9114, which shows flange stiffeners at the column 79 end of the girder between column 44 and 79.

All the 11" v 12" nonsense is immaterial. All the truther claims I have seen assume that the columns were still in there as built locations and not affected by heat. Since the columns and all the frame were heat affected arguing over 0.5" is stupid. And, yes, many debunkers fell for it.

NIST omitted these flange stiffeners that would have prevented the bottom flange from folding as required for their collapse to begin. The girder would have to be pushed almost all the way off the seat, not just half way, before the bottom flange would buckle.

And...?

NIST’s drawing of column 79 omits flange stiffeners that would have prevented the girder's failure

Prove "prevented" is not wishfull thinking.

Even those who have accepted the official story must acknowledge that NIST’s misstatements of its own report are not mistakes. They are bending the facts to accommodate a theory that cannot, so to speak, stand up.

Emotive crap. False generalisation "accepted the official story" and no proof of malfeasance.

Structural engineer Ron Brookman found that the Salvarinas “Fabrication and Construction Aspects” a document that outlines the basic structural system of WTC 7, shows 30 shear studs on the girder in question.

Wow - did he? - add his name to the list.

Davin Coburn, editor/researcher for Popular Mechanics, told Charles Goyette in this radio interview that he had seen a photo of the 10-story gouge
Coburn: "When the North Tower collapsed … there was damage to Building 7 … What we found out was … about 25% of the building’s south face had been carved away from it …"
“We have seen pictures that are property of the NY Police Department and various other governmental agencies that we were not given permission to disseminate …”
Goyette: "Popular Mechanics got to see them, but the average American citizen can’t see them."
Coburn: "Correct."

Some people said something - so what?

Shyam Sunder misinforms Popular Mechanics in the article “Debunking The 9/11 Myths” by telling the writers that there was a fire on floor five of WTC7 that lasted up to seven hours. There was no fire reported on that floor and no reason to think there was one.

Did he? So what? the building was ravaged by unfought fires. What difference if there was no fire in the ladies loo?

We read of NIST’s contention that heat had caused five 13th floor beams, framing into a long span girder, to expand.* They said that 5.5” was enough to push the girder across its 11” seat on column 79 beyond the vertical web, so that the lower flange of the girder became exposed to the entire weight of that floor area. NIST said that the flange could not support that load and folded upwards.

And it is a plausible explanation. Note "plausible" THEN NOTE that no truther has ever come up with a better one. And the engineering leading light of AE911 - T Sz - has posted some false crap.

We further noted that NIST said that the 5.5” expansion was the maximum possible expansion. This is because any additional heating would soften the beam, leading to sagging rather than any greater pushing.

PLEASE don't try to read that as saying "it was 5.5 and could not have been 6.0

Thus NIST’s claim of an 11” beam seat and the maximum push of 5.5” were inextricably interwoven. Both had to be true for NIST's explanation to work. When NIST was notified last year about the seat width discrepancy, they issued an erratum document admitting this error in June 2012. *

I warned you to not do that crap.

However, in that same document they went on to say that they had also spotted another error, and added another paragraph to their erratum document. They claimed that a ‘typographical error’ had been made and that the 5.5" distance should have been 6.25".* Apparently they had transposed two figures, said to be axial and lateral expansion figures, and this new erratum document simply reversed them.

Sure. NIST has all along been responsive to correcting errors in details.

With the beam seat confirmed at 12” wide and the newly required sideways movement 6.25”, they nevertheless stood by their original theory.

As any intelligent human would. I can forgive the lay persons not comprehending that 5.5 and 6.0 are the same number in that setting.. BUT they have engineer members including Szamboti - and he has been told about the error many times.

Now that the newly required sideways shift distance of 6.25” was confirmed for the acknowledged 12”-wide girder seat, NIST’s earlier contention concerning the maximum heat (600° C.) before the beams would sag would come into question.

Same nonsense - repeating it doesn't make it "True" make my life easier and drop all the 11 v 12 discrepancy arguments. They are nonsense.

In our earlier videos we presented our carefully calculated findings that at the temperature required to expand by 6.25”, the beam would indeed have lost much of its strength, and would certainly be sagging rather than pushing the girder.

Yet another careless error by NIST was found. While discussing how we should raise this subject with NIST, a member of our team made another startling discovery which moved the entire debate into new territory. Upon close examination of the connection between Column 79 and the girder – a connection that NIST claimed failed – he spotted another steel element in the drawing that had not been previously mentioned. “Stiffener plates” were specified at the end of the girder and welded in place to both sides of the web and to the bottom flange.

Same stuff - david it has been debated at extreme length. And rebutted many times. I wont even go into details because the assumptions AND the framing of the argument is stupid. We know that EPH fell so Col 79 MUST have failed. IF NIST's plausible explanation is wrong SO WHAT? Where is the truth movement reasoning as to why it matters. And don't miss that point. Why it matters is the question to ask NOT "Was NIST wrong".

NIST’s failure to show these stiffeners or take them into account in its analysis is yet another area where the omissions and incorrect statements are so egregious, anyone who understands these issues must by now begin to question NIST’s motives.

Anyone who understands these issues would not even pause for breath before saying "So what?" The claim of misfeasance also unsupported.

When we mentioned these stiffeners to mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti, who is involved in structural design in his professional work, he explained their role in such situations. He went on to say “The discovery of the girder stiffener plates in drawing #9114 is a game changer, because this drawing covers the exact location where NIST says the collapse initiated.”

If Tony Szamboti said it it is near certain it is either WRONG OR an irrelevant detail.

Basically, these stiffeners brace the end of a girder between the lower load-bearing flange and its vertical web, so that if for any reason the girder did move laterally on its seat, the flange can transmit the extra load to that web and not fold upwards. In effect they make an I-beam end almost*into a "box" section.

Wow - I'm an engineer ozeco BE(Civil) ASTC FIE(Aust) (and LLB)

This*discovery changes the debate.

No it doesn't. AE911 haven't a clue where the debate should be.

Whether the girder travel was 5.5” or 6.25” was now irrelevant because even at up to a 9” lateral move, that girder end would still have enough strength to remain*on its seat.*(It should be remembered that the girder was also held in place vertically by the five attached beams that were framed into it, and therefore the girder could not tip over sideways either – as was also postulated by NIST.)

Hilited bit - don't miss it. They agree with me. And that phrase negates all the preceding paragraphs on that aspect.

The presence of these stiffener plates was brought to NIST’s attention by structural engineers. The lack of response from NIST has been*deafening, until just a few weeks ago.

Personally I gave sympathy with NIST - they have tried to assist truthers with details which are of little consequence and all they get is misrepresentation. The Chandler forced "Admission" of free fall on WTC7 is the prime example of truth movement opportunistic misrepresentation.

On October 25, 2013, NIST replied to questions about the failure to include the stiffeners in many figures in the final WTC 7 report. They did acknowledge that they had consulted Frankel shop drawing #9114, but claimed:

NIST still persists in giving feedback.

“The web stiffeners shown at the end of the girder in Frankel drawing #9114 prevent web crippling. The structural analyses of WTC 7 did not show any web crippling failures. Therefore, the web crippling plates did not need to be included in the models/analyses.”

..and telling the engineering dodos some facts.

David - despite all the words there is not much substance in the AE911 matrial. However it does not lend to easy rebuttal in a few words. Making it "hard to answer" is also a common truther tactic.

MY advice echoes what others have said. Forget proving NIST wrong. the challenge is prove CD. Proving NIST was wrong does not prove CD.

 

[jaydeehess]

A quick response to post 587 is to point out that merely finding issue with NIST , or Popular Science, is not what AE911T needs to do. If it wishes to push another cause for collapse then it needs to do research to demonstrate that!

In addition the above contains at least one bit of misinformation: Sunder did NOT tell PM that there WAS diesel fuel fires on the fifth floor. In fact, after the interview the final report came out specifically stating the they found no evidence of such a fire and thus did not pursue any scenario for collapse that would have had such a fire as the proximate cause of structural failure. Sunder was discussing the interim report which outlined that NIST would look for evidence of this liquid fuel fed fire, and the implications if such a fire was established as having occurred. AE911T does not bother to relate any of that , instead conflating what the article quotes him saying and what the article's author opines.

DGM, thanks. That helps. I am making a couple of points about NIST. (I know we have all discussed NIST and their report quite a bit.) But I have a couple of points that I believe are worth bringing up.

Are you saying the list is 100% not factual? I wouldn't think so. But if you or anyone would be kind enough to point out which items are not factual, it might save me some time. The ones that are not factual I will drop from my argument. They may not be the ones I was using anyway. Since this is not a "test," I would not feel like I was cheating. thx

Certainly at the very least , the point addressed above illustrates one non-factual item in the list.

Yet again though, I must mention that no attempt to prove-NIST-wrong will ever prove AE911T right, wrt controlled demolition or overcome the null hypothesis.
Where is the work, the research to do that? Will it be forthcoming by the 20th anniversary of 911?

 

[ozeco41]

Yet again though, I must mention that no attempt to prove-NIST-wrong will ever prove AE911T right,.....

 

[Robrob]

Yet again though, I must mention that no attempt to prove-NIST-wrong will ever prove AE911T right, wrt controlled demolition or overcome the null hypothesis.

Pointing at supposed flaws in the null hypothesis as a substitute for actually providing evidence supporting your claims. It's the classic CT meme. Creationist have used if for generations.

 

[ozeco41]

Pointing at supposed flaws in the null hypothesis as a substitute for actually providing evidence supporting your claims. It's the classic CT meme. Creationist have used if for generations.

I served my apprenticeship on the RichardDawkinsForum - the analogy "Creationism" v "9/11 Conspiracy" is spot on.

Two lessons we "9/11ers" could learn from the evolutionary biologists:
1) There are not "two sides"; AND
2) Don't give "them" credibility by debating them in public meetings. They are only after your name alongside theirs on the billing.

 

[Robrob]

I served my apprenticeship on the RichardDawkinsForum - the analogy "Creationism" v "9/11 Conspiracy" is spot on.

Two lessons we "9/11ers" could learn from the evolutionary biologists:
1) There are not "two sides"; AND
2) Don't give "them" credibility by debating them in public meetings. They are only after your name alongside theirs on the billing.

This recent response on a 911 FaceBook debate page sums it up:

When you asked me earlier if I had proof, you showed your cards. How does one prove anything a shadow government does? You need to rename this group to "Two Shepherds and their Ignorant Group" That is all

 

[pgimeno]

pgimeno: "I've already made the point that the faster-than-free-fall collapse of WTC7 makes the case for simultaneous removal of supporting columns invalid."

Therefore, since there was "faster-than-free-fall," the removal of supporting columns was not simultaneous.

That's not my conclusion. My conclusion is that therefore, there was no "removal", but rather, a failure under load, which is expected to be simultaneous or nearly simultaneous for any scenario where such a failure occurs. See vid.

Ready yet to prove CD?

ETA: The sense in which I use "removal" is one I think we agree on: going from opposing resistance to not opposing any resistance whatsoever. Faster-than-free-fall shows that that scenario is extremely unlikely, therefore the case for demolition based on it is heavily weakened. See http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9638732&postcount=155 for a more detailed explanation.

 

[LashL]

Thread is closed temporarily for clean up/splitting. As always, please do not start new threads on the same topic(s) during this brief closure.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

 

[LashL]

Okay, more than 200 posts have been moved to a split thread here. Please stick to the topic of the threads in which you're posting. Given the large number of posts moved, I may very well have moved some that should have stayed and vice versa; please feel free to let me know if I've erred and need to move/revert some of them. Both this thread and the split thread will re-open shortly.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

 

[jaydeehess]

Thank you LashL

 

[LSSBB]

Bump for Frishman

 

[LSSBB]

Bump for Ziggi.

 

[LSSBB]

Bump (again) for Ziggi. Be sure to read the OP and the whole thread.

 

[Miragememories]

Bump (again) for Ziggi. Be sure to read the OP and the whole thread.

If you have a specific argument to make, make it.

Otherwise you are just spamming the thread.

 

[pgimeno]

If you have a specific argument to make, make it.

Otherwise you are just spamming the thread.

I'd say he made his point in the OP already.

 

[LSSBB]

If you have a specific argument to make, make it.

Otherwise you are just spamming the thread.

Apparently you have not read my recent posts in the WTC 7 thread. However, I find the fact that you would call me out and not your anonymous friend, quite interesting.

That's OK, he is probably following Tony's lead and thinks I am a paid shill anyway, to help cover up for CD so the oil companies wouldn't have to contend with the government of Afghanistan. (for the sarcasm translation challenged, Afghanistan is who the U.S. targeted right after 9/11.)