DC: Why do you think WTC7 was a CD?

[DC]

Care to state why you think it didn't topple?
I doubt that they were "massive." Either way, the building was most likely designed to transfer the weight evenly throughout the entire building.
Exactly. However they didn't accurately account for the load capacity of the remaining columns, so they failed. The same could be said about WTC 7. Once the columns below the east penthouse failed, the remaining columns could not handle the weight that was transfered to them. They were able to handle it for ~8 seconds and then failed. The remaining roof structures collapsing into the building faster than the facade would indicate that the failure was from the inside columns first.

that the collapse was initiated somewhere in columns 79,80 and/or 81 is pretty clear by now.

 

[DC]

You keep saying no, do you know when the picture was taken?

no i just looked closely at the picture, and i concluded the WTC7 debris is not on top of the other building.

compare it to pictures from other perspectives.

it just needs a little 3-D Sence

 

[Pardalis]

no i just looked closely at the picture, and i concluded the WTC7 debris is not on top of the other building.

compare it to pictures from other perspectives.

it just needs a little 3-D Sence

This is irrelevant as to when the picture was taken.

 

[DC]

This is irrelevant as to when the picture was taken.

ok enlighten me, when was the picture taken?

 

[Pardalis]

ok enlighten me, when was the picture taken?

I don't know, that's the point.

If it was taken while the clean-up process was well underway, as it clearly seems to be, then your point that this picture proves that the building collapsed into a neat pile is invalid.

Get it?

 

[DC]

I don't know, that's the point.

If it was taken while the clean-up process was well underway, as it clearly seems to be, then your point that this picture proves that the building collapsed into a neat pile is invalid.

Get it?

that was not the point, it was about the claim that the WTC7 debris is on the other building, and i think that is wrong. if you look closely.

 

[Pardalis]

that was not the point

Yes it was.

it was about the claim that the WTC7 debris is on the other building, and i think that is wrong. if you look closely.

That's you moving the goalposts, I understand it's hard for you to keep track of the conversations you take part in when you do that.

The best thing is to stop doing that.

 

[nicepants]

yes i know about the special design of the building. and it is hard to say how those trusses would have behaved in the collapse.
i hope NIST's final report will tell us.

If you aren't sure how those trusses would have behaved, how can you conclude that their observed behavior was "very very unlikely"?

 

[pomeroo]

not evenly spreaded fires.

is pull it an official term?

No, "pull it" is not an official term. It is firefighters' slang. The term was dishonestly used by conspiracy liars to insinuate that an innocent man had perpetrated an unspecified crime.

 

[DC]

If you aren't sure how those trusses would have behaved, how can you conclude that their observed behavior was "very very unlikely"?

when you know more, tell me

 

[DC]

Yes it was.

That's you moving the goalposts, I understand it's hard for you to keep track of the conversations you take part in when you do that.

The best thing is to stop doing that.

ok ok you totaly convinced me..... really

 

[scissorhands]

when you know more, tell me

So you have no idea and are just making stuff up as you go along.

Nothing new there.

 

[nicepants]

Repeating...

when you know more, tell me

Please answer the question:

If you aren't sure how those trusses would have behaved, how can you conclude that their observed behavior was "very very unlikely"?

For example, I can claim that flipping a coin 100x and having it land on heads all 100x in a row would be very unlikely. How do I know this? Because I know that the expected behavior would be for the coin to land on heads approximately 50% of the time.

If I don't know the expected behavior, there's no way for me to know that any other outcome is un-expected or unlikely.

As a follow-up to the above question:

- What was the expected behavior?
- What data did you use to make this determination?

 

[DC]

Please answer the question:



For example, I can claim that flipping a coin 100x and having it land on heads all 100x in a row would be very unlikely. How do I know this? Because I know that the expected behavior would be for the coin to land on heads approximately 50% of the time.

If I don't know the expected behavior, there's no way for me to know that any other outcome is un-expected or unlikely.

As a follow-up to the above question:

- What was the expected behavior?
- What data did you use to make this determination?

most data comes from FEMA and NIST.
i read all the drafts and presentations NIST publish on theyr homepage.

 

[nicepants]

most data comes from FEMA and NIST.
i read all the drafts and presentations NIST publish on theyr homepage.

- What was the expected behavior of the trusses?

 

[DC]

- What was the expected behavior of the trusses?

Maybe we will see when the final NIST report is released.

 

[fezzic]

You keep saying no, do you know when the picture was taken?

no i just looked closely at the picture, and i concluded the WTC7 debris is not on top of the other building.

compare it to pictures from other perspectives.

it just needs a little 3-D Sence

This is irrelevant as to when the picture was taken.

ok enlighten me, when was the picture taken?

I don't know, that's the point.

If it was taken while the clean-up process was well underway, as it clearly seems to be, then your point that this picture proves that the building collapsed into a neat pile is invalid.

Get it?

that was not the point, it was about the claim that the WTC7 debris is on the other building, and i think that is wrong. if you look closely.

It comes from this source:

NOAA's Aerial Photo of World Trade Center
Image taken by NOAA's Cessna Citation Jet on Sept. 23, 2001 from an altitude of 3,300 feet using a Leica/LH systems RC30 camera.
Image released Oct. 2, 2001 at 6:15 p.m. EDT
Please credit "NOAA."

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/s798b.htm

The links at the bottom of the article/page are the images. Largest is 14 MB, I think the same image at varying resolutions. The images you see on the page that came up in the link above are ladar images I think.

 

[Corsair 115]

i would say a uncontrolled fire, will never spread symmetrically.

First, how do you know that? Have you studied firefighting? Or is that just an assumption of yours? If it's the latter, what criteria led you to that assumption?

But that is not the point being discussed anyway. Please offer the criteria by which you decide a fire is evenly spread versus unevenly spread.

 

[DC]

First, how do you know that? Have you studied firefighting? Or is that just an assumption of yours? If it's the latter, what criteria led you to that assumption?

But that is not the point being discussed anyway. Please offer the criteria by which you decide a fire is evenly spread versus unevenly spread.

ok forget it.

 

[applecorped]

Maybe we will see when the final NIST report is released.

Will you accept the findings of the final NIST report if it doesn't support your view?