If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Part II

[ProBonoShill]

Transits aren't used to measure when a fire began burning, but ok. At what time was this instrument used during the day? If the instrument was placed near where the bulge was forming on the perimeter, could that give a wrong impression that the entire building was shifting, rather than a relatively small part of it? What could specifically be the cause of the building "shifting"/"moving"? How can that relate to the collapse that occurred?

It's clear you have no idea what a transit is. I gave you a link why don't you use it???

 

[MicahJava]

It's clear you have no idea what a transit is.

I probably learned yesterday. Maybe you can help me learn. Your point and your answer?

I gave you a link why don't you use it???

The firehouse forum link? 5 pages in, and most of the people there just seem awful. Just a hodgepodge of ad hominem garbage. The only respectful ones were the ones who questioned the OS.

 

[Redwood]

Originally Posted by Redwood
Sorry, Bucko. NIST never said the structural damage was superficial. They said the structural damage was not the immediate cause of the collapse. Big difference!

Admit it: you haven't read the engineering reports, have you? I'll bet you don't even have copies downloaded to your computer, do you? You're not alone - in just the last week or so, I've shown that FF hasn't read NCSTAR 1-9 (he at least admitted it, and said he had no interest in doing so), and on one of the FB 9/11 pages, I showed that a Truther who's been repeating the same failed WTC Tropes for at least eight years hasn't read them, either. I'm beginning to suspect that there's not a single Truther who's ever actually read them! But how do you expect to persuade the general public, much less professionals, when you haven't even read the reports you're trying to refute?

Try this: Go to NCSTAR 1-9, then search for the word "superficial" with Ctrl+4. I did, and could only find two positive searches, neither of which help you. But maybe you can catch something my elderly eyes missed.

Even better, download and read them. It can't do you any harm, and can only make you smarter. You might even become the smartest Truther in all Trutherdom!

"Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7. The building withstood debris impact damage that resulted in seven exterior columns being severed and subsequently withstood fires involving typical office combustibles on several floors for almost seven hours."

"Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires having the same characteristics as those experienced on September 11, 2001."

"Based on photographic evidence, witness accounts, and engineering judgment, it is likely that the structural damage (steel and floor slabs) did not penetrate beyond the perimeter of the building core. At the southwest corner, the structural damage extended only about one-third of the distance from the exterior wall to the building core. The debris also broke a large number of windows on the south face. Compared to the airplane impact damage to the WTC towers, there was relatively little damage to the interior of WTC 7."


http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=861610

Thank you for your non-responsive response!

You claimed first that NIST had stated that the damage to WTC 7 was "superficial". But any debunker will agree that the structural damage to WTC 7, however severe, had nothing to do with the immediate cause of collapse of WTC 7!

Will you now stipulate that, AFAYK, NIST never made any such statement? You have nothing to lose at this point. The Truther movement, year 2016 has zero credibility, or even negative credibility, if such a thing is even possible! Why not get on the straight path now?

 

[Redwood]

So arsonists never start a fire near an circuit breaker or a fireplace to hide their deeds and ward off investigations?

But neither NIST, nor anyone else, ever claimed that the fires in WTC 7 began close to a circuit breaker! Talk about red herring! Why don't you go back a step and tell us how you think that NWO agents started the fire in WTC 7 without being noticed? Bonus points for explaining the car fires north of
WTC 7!

 

[MicahJava]

But neither NIST, nor anyone else, ever claimed that the fires in WTC 7 began close to a circuit breaker! Talk about red herring! Why don't you go back a step and tell us how you think that NWO agents started the fire in WTC 7 without being noticed? Bonus points for explaining the car fires north of
WTC 7!

I was just explaining the concept of a criminal covering up their crimes, but ok.

This is also not a thread in which I try to argue arson in WTC 7. I've heard about these car fires reading about Judy Wood debunking. Couldn't most of them be caused by a chain reaction from closer car fires? How do you think the cars caught on fire?

 

[Redwood]

Originally Posted by Redwood
Except for the "Kaboom". The all-important sign. WHERE'S THE KABOOM?

NFPA 921 – 23.1.4 Definition of an Explosion

“Although an explosion is almost always accompanied by the production of a loud noise, the noise itself is not an essential element in the definition of an explosion. The generation and violent escape of gases are the primary criteria for an explosion.”

OK, so we all agree, based on your quote, that mere loud noise does not mean "explosion". Don't you realize that this is even the worse for you? Where is your citation that explosions (especially demolition charges) are possible WITHOUT the "Kaboom"?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I was just explaining the concept of a criminal covering up their crimes, but ok.

This is also not a thread in which I try to argue arson in WTC 7. I've heard about these car fires reading about Judy Wood debunking. Couldn't most of them be caused by a chain reaction from closer car fires? How do you think the cars caught on fire?

They burned.
Generator fires would be expected the batteries off gas hydrogen, a spark can cause an explosion.
Fires spread from world trade 2, also the fact I can give the complete chemical reactions,
In my experiments and completely repeat them, means they are valid, and accurate.
I don't do fake experiments like Cole!

 

[MicahJava]

OK, so we all agree, based on your quote, that mere loud noise does not mean "explosion". Don't you realize that this is even the worse for you? Where is your citation that explosions (especially demolition charges) are possible WITHOUT the "Kaboom"?

What? How did you get that from that?

 

[MicahJava]

They burned.
Generator fires would be expected the batteries off gas hydrogen, a spark can cause an explosion.
Fires spread from world trade 2, also the fact I can give the complete chemical reactions,
In my experiments and completely repeat them, means they are valid, and accurate.
I don't do fake experiments like Cole!

What?

 

[GlennB]

What? How did you get that from that?

Have you been to YouTube and watched a few videos of commercial cd's, of the that use explosives? They're accompanied by a series of very visible flashes and an unmistakable string of very loud cracks. No such thing happened at WTC7. CD on 9/11 is total nonsense.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I probably learned yesterday. Maybe you can help me learn. Your point and your answer?



The firehouse forum link? 5 pages in, and most of the people there just seem awful. Just a hodgepodge of ad hominem garbage. The only respectful ones were the ones who questioned the OS.

The transit would have been placed on the leaning side of the building not the bulging side.

It would have measured rate of creep, change, and from that an estimate of accumulated loading could be arrived at. That estimate, would give probability of time of collapse based on failure of the columns and counter levered beam structure.

Once lean reached a critical point the steel would topple and the building would fall over on it's side, leaving the granite facade to collapse and fall on top of the toppled steel interior framing.
The Facade was heavy granite to resist wind loading, so it's inertia held it in place for a few seconds after the steel toppled, to the damaged side.
Simple physics explains the collapses better that BS, Demolition theories.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

What?

The cars burned, Lead acid batteries explode.

Burning debris from the towers would light fires in 7, nothing you have stated is rellevent.

 

[ProBonoShill]

I probably learned yesterday. Maybe you can help me learn. Your point and your answer?

My point is your assertions are nonsense and you should understand what you're discussing before posting a bunch of drivel.

The firehouse forum link? 5 pages in, and most of the people there just seem awful. Just a hodgepodge of ad hominem garbage. The only respectful ones were the ones who questioned the OS.

So lazy it is, no wonder no one takes twofers seriously. 15 years of failure and counting...

 

[JSanderO]

The Facade was heavy granite to resist wind loading, so it's inertia held it in place for a few seconds after the steel toppled, to the damaged side.
Simple physics explains the collapses better that BS, Demolition theories.

NO! The facade was not heavy to resist wind shear. It was a light curtain wall hung on clips.... The facade was clipped to the spandrel beams which were part of a moment frame consisting of the spandrel beams and the exterior columns. There were belt trusses midway up which were likely intended to resist twisting and distortion from wind shear I believe. The moment frame was effectively 4 rigid planes/membranes (vierendeel trusses).

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

NO! The facade was not heavy to resist wind shear. It was a light curtain wall hung on clips.... The facade was clipped to the spandrel beams which were part of a moment frame consisting of the spandrel beams and the exterior columns. There were belt trusses midway up which were likely intended to resist twisting and distortion from wind shear I believe. The moment frame was effectively 4 rigid planes/membranes (vierendeel trusses).

The movement frame was what was designed to be resistant to wind loading, the granite was heavy it was clipped onto the movement frame, for cosmetic effect and for counter weighting the movement frame. To provide inertial loading of the movement frame, as I recall my conversation with the engineer that worked on the project, though I could be wrong it has been years since he explained the functions of the facade and movement frame.

 

[pgimeno]

Tall buildings have stronger and larger structural components than short buildings.

To compensate for their height, not for increasing their resistance to fire. They're just as vulnerable to fire as low rises.

The closest example I could find is the One Meridian Plaza fire.

Really?

What about WTC5? It suffered interior partial collapses.

What about One New York Plaza? It suffered interior partial collapses.

What about the Windsor building in Madrid? The core was concrete, the perimeter was steel.

"All interior firefighting efforts were halted after almost 11 hours of uninterrupted fire in the building. Consultation with a structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in the building led to the belief that there was a possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged floors. Bearing this risk in mind along with the loss of three personnel and the lack of progress against the fire despite having secured adequate water pressure and flow for interior fire streams, an order was given to evacuate the building at 0700 on February 24.

[...]

1. The engineer told them that it may be in danger of collapse. He did not say with great certainty that it would collapse, nor did he predict the hour in which it would collapse.

2. It did not collapse.

You're forgetting that the building had been receiving firefighting efforts for "almost 11 hours". That would reduce the danger of collapse.

Windsor building's fire was not fought in the top levels. See what was left.

 

[pgimeno]

Where does [Mike Catalano] describe that he perceived the diesel fuel tank in WTC 7 on fire?

He doesn't. Where do you get that from?

 

[pgimeno]

Transits aren't used to measure when a fire began burning, but ok. At what time was this instrument used during the day? If the instrument was placed near where the bulge was forming on the perimeter, could that give a wrong impression that the entire building was shifting, rather than a relatively small part of it? What could specifically be the cause of the building "shifting"/"moving"? How can that relate to the collapse that occurred?

You're missing, or avoiding, the point. The point is that the transit was used to determine if the building moved, and Hayden says that it did. You tried to claim he could be wrong. I said it's not comparable to the other example of being wrong that you mentioned. That leaves either you have to claim he's lying, or your claim of him being wrong has no basis.

It doesn't matter if it was that the bulge was developing, or that the entire building was shifting. Either movement is a clear sign of danger.

And I still don't understand how you get that I implied that the transit might have been used to measure when the fire began burning.

 

[Criteria]

The transit would have been placed on the leaning side of the [WTC7] building not the bulging side.

It would have measured rate of creep, change, and from that an estimate of accumulated loading could be arrived at. That estimate, would give probability of time of collapse based on failure of the columns and counter levered beam structure.

Once lean reached a critical point the steel would topple and the building would fall over on it's side, leaving the granite facade to collapse and fall on top of the toppled steel interior framing.

The Facade was heavy granite to resist wind loading, so it's inertia held it in place for a few seconds after the steel toppled, to the damaged side.

Simple physics explains the collapses better that BS, Demolition theories.

The FDNY acknowledged the use of a transit. They never produced any results that confirmed their fear that WTC7 might possibly be actively leaning and no such data was ever given to the NIST.

Supposedly hour upon hour, you believe the transit was measuring the WTC7’s active creep as it steadily and inexorably leaned.

Hours later, the roofline showed no evidence of this progressing lean or any indication that “accumulated loading” was actually occurring.

 

[pgimeno]

WTC 7 took 13.8 billion years to collapse. Source: Big Bang theory.

Dodge. The time since the façade started to fall until it disappeared from view was greater than that of a free falling object. Sunder says that. He doesn't say that free fall didn't happen anywhere in that period. That's the point.

You haven't provided any evidence that NIST denied free fall. Are you willing to admit that NIST didn't, or will you avoid the question with another dodge?

And an additional point I made is that free fall means nothing anyway, despite so many people making a big deal of it. There's a thread dedicated to that very subject.