• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

NIST Releases FINAL WTC 7 Report - Nov. 20

jaydeehess said:
If it buckled then how would you determine that it was due to fire induced damage around it as opposed to some other causation?
Click to expand...

This is for the forensic engineers to figure out since that is what NIST is claiming happened. This is a very unique column since it buckled due to lack of floor supports to an exterior column when it was still connected to the girders to a core column. The fact that it failed at all is an unprecedented architectural event.
 
Why on Earth should a tiny group of people, many of whom are obviously ideologically predisposed, who are not satisfied with the NIST report get to demand that forensic engineers need to investigate WTC7 or ANY additional investigation is warranted?

Let the call come from a person or organization that is respected in the engineering community and I'm all over it. Let it come from a bunch of internet forum whiners and pseudo-scientific snake oil salesmen? Nope. My tax money is better spent on something else.
 
twinstead said:
Why on Earth should a tiny group of people, many of whom are obviously ideologically predisposed, who are not satisfied with the NIST report get to demand that forensic engineers need to investigate WTC7 or ANY additional investigation is warranted?

Let the call come from a person or organization that is respected in the engineering community and I'm all over it. Let it come from a bunch of internet forum whiners and pseudo-scientific snake oil salesmen? Nope. My tax money is better spent on something else.
Click to expand...

Exactly!

The ASCE and the CTBUH both have none of the problems with the report that RI and the TM do.

Originally Posted by RedIbis
If the theory is that Column 79 failed due to fire, and this column failure caused global collapse
,,,,,,,,,
This unfortunately forces me to ask a very simple question. Where's Column 79, any of the shear studs, or any other physical evidence?
,,,,,,,,
How about the buckling from extreme heat, or evidence of thermal expansion, or how the girder to floor 13 failed. You know, basic forensic engineering.
,,,,,,,,,
This is for the forensic engineers to figure out since that is what NIST is claiming happened. This is a very unique column since it buckled due to lack of floor supports to an exterior column when it was still connected to the girders to a core column.
Click to expand...

that's quite a progression there RI.

You start off assuming that NIST stated that col 79 failed directly due to fire then finally it seems, after being told several times, that NIST did not state that col 79 failed due to heating you change your tune and include the fact that the report says it failed as a result of other damages which the fires caused.

However, you fail to answer the question. YOU asked where col 79 was , demanded that it be part of the forensic evidence. YOU must therefore have some glimmer of an idea why col 79 would bolster or refute the NIST findings.
SO,,, again,,, it is your call for col 79 to be produced. I have asked why. Are you ever going to answer me or do I have to guess?

Furthermore, although col 79 might be identified by its shape and size or other characteristics, from what I gather it was not specifically marked.
Neither were the girders or beams which are much smaller than col 79 and thus would be even more difficult to positively identify.
In addition , even if they were, it would be nigh on impossible to determine if damage to them was caused by heat pre- or post-collapse.

So what we are left with is the science of materials and wadda ya know, thermal expansion of steel structural members has been studied before the WTC 7 reports. You can find references for this in the report. That is what NIST used when designing their computer models.

ETA:
Column 79 shouldn't be that hard to find, it's the buckled column that will display the effects of themal expansion at the end.
Click to expand...
RI, you posted this today, illustrating that you still believe that col 79 must show heat damage effects.
What effects would those be?
Please tell me where in the NIST report they state that col 79 would be affected directly by the heat such that it would reveal anything other than that a fire was occuring on the 12th floor. We all know that there was a fire on the 12th floor.

It also appears that you want a specific piece of a specific column. A column that would have to have been saved for several years along with all other structural members. You are working from hindsight. To satisfy your demand the entire mass of three buildings and parts of several others would have had to be stored somewhere. Perhaps you'd have given NIST a good rate on spare storage space in your basement?
Then of course there is the catagorizing of thousands of tons of steel (you didn't want the concrete saved too, right?) More space, time and money requirements.

it was still connected to the girders to a core column.
Click to expand...

It did not buckle towards the core columns in the direction of those girders. What would those girders do to prevent it buckling in the direction of the lost support? Are you telling us that the girder connections were designed with torsion in mind in order to resist column movement away from the girders?
Do you not think that ripping away floor girders from one side might pull the column a little bit that way? (remember the first one slipped off its seat and crashed down on the next floor, ripping the next one away)
 
Last edited:
Well, they could say that the supposed demo charges took out several floor spans thus removing lateral support from col 79 which then buckled.

That would reduce the number of explosions required even if it did then require that they adhere to the NIST sim in as much as what occured next. Given that they cannot abide giving NIST any credence at all....................................
 
So what I'm getting out of this is that most here don't think that physical evidence is required. Or if that physical evidence were presented, it wouldn't necessarily supporrt NIST's conclusions anyway, so it's not necessary.

Correct me if I'm wrong since I find this a very fascinating approach to skepticism and critical thinking.
 
RedIbis said:
So what I'm getting out of this is that most here don't think that physical evidence is required. Or if that physical evidence were presented, it wouldn't necessarily supporrt NIST's conclusions anyway, so it's not necessary.

Correct me if I'm wrong since I find this a very fascinating approach to skepticism and critical thinking.
Click to expand...

OK, you're wrong and I'll correct you. Physical evidence would be very useful in determining how WTC7 collapsed. Given that the relevant physical evidence is not present, and - it appears - cannot be recovered, because column 79 was unidentifiable and most probably has been recycled, then we can either throw our hands in the air and lament (or rejoice, according to preference) over never being able to determine What Really Happened, or we can construct the scenario which best agrees with the other evidence available. Having done so, we form the provisional conclusion that the best fit scenario is the one closest to the actual events, pending the emergence of further evidence. What we do not do is reject the most likely scenario in favour of one specifically contradicted by the available evidence, or (even more absurdly) reject the most likely scenario, flatly refuse to construct an alternative scenario, but claim that our unwarranted rejection of the most likely scenario is proof that the actual events must fall into a particular class.

Dave
 
RedIbis said:
So what I'm getting out of this is that most here don't think that physical evidence is required.
Click to expand...
The evidence shows that WTC 7 was on fire. The evidence shows that the fires were no fought. The evidence shows the fire sprinklers were not working due to no water pressure. The evidence shows the building collapsed. The evidence shows there was no sound of explosions. The evidence shows no signs of bombs, mini-nukes, thermite, space beams, etc.

You have dismissed all this evidence, why?

Or if that physical evidence were presented, it wouldn't necessarily supporrt NIST's conclusions anyway, so it's not necessary.
Click to expand...
Can you tell us what you think the column pieces would show?

Correct me if I'm wrong since I find this a very fascinating approach to skepticism and critical thinking.
Click to expand...
What is fascinating is you have ignored all of the evidence - every last bit of it. And after you have ignored all the evidence, you then declare there is no evidence.

This is the same MO you used in the hilarious C-Ring thread, where you refused to anmswer any direct questions and would just keep popping back from time to time declaring that there was no evidence, ignoring all that was put forth. Truly bizarre RedIbis, you are acting like a child who puts his hands over his ears and hums "I can't hear you" when confronted with things he doesn't want to hear.

It's obvious to everyone here you are not a skeptic, you have no theory, you have no evidence to counter the NIST explanation, and you also have no desire to actually educate yourself on the matter. You don't contact anyone who was on the scene, you reject expert opinion out of hand. sadly, this is the hallmark of truthers - ask questions, ignore the answers, repeat.

Good luck with that.
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
.....Correct me if I'm wrong since I find this a very fascinating approach to skepticism and critical thinking.
Click to expand...

I'll add also that you are wrong.

So what I'm getting out of this is that most here don't think that physical evidence is required. .........
Click to expand...

What we are saying is that having the steel structural members might or might not have helped determine what exactly happened.
Your pet bugaboo, column 79, specifically may well have provided no information at all due damage that occured after collapse initiation and post collapse heating IF one could specfically identify column 79 and the section of column 79 at the level in question.

However, having the steel is not absolutly required in order to arrive at some logical and technically valid hypothisis on how the building collapsed. Computer sims are used to design aircraft that do not fall out of the sky on their first flights. They are used to design buildings now too. They are quite reliable in predicting structural behaviour.

Given the Herculean task that would have been; catalogueing each piece of steel, identifying its location in the building(s), and storing the entire building until the computer sims came up with a specific item to investiagte, it is little wonder that this was not undertaken..

Or if that physical evidence were presented, it wouldn't necessarily supporrt NIST's conclusions anyway, so it's not necessary.
Click to expand...

Where did you get that from?
If you mean that it may have been a enormous waste of time and money to save the entire building then yes, it would not have been useful. Not useful would , in retrospect certainly mean unneccessary.

If you mean to characterize the finding of contradictory evidence to the NIST hypothisis as unneccessary then by all means tell us where anyone said that.
I asked you what you would expect to find on col 79 that would bolster or refute the NIST hypothisis. If some pertinent information could be gleaned from col 79 it would do one or the other.
You still have not deemed it worthy of much of an answer.
 
Last edited:
Jay,
A computer simulation is only as good as those who are inputting the data. Physical evidence is much more reliable. You wouldn't have to wonder if Column 79 would or wouldn't help us determine the cause if we had it in front of us.

No physical evidence = speculation. At least you were correct in calling NIST's conclusions hypothetical since there is no physical evidence to support it and cannot therefore, be considered theoretical.
 
RedIbis said:
No physical evidence = speculation. At least you were correct in calling NIST's conclusions hypothetical since there is no physical evidence to support it and cannot therefore, be considered theoretical.
Click to expand...

What about the Truth Movement's theories? Do they have physical evidence to back up their assertions?
 
RedIbis said:
Jay,
A computer simulation is only as good as those who are inputting the data. Physical evidence is much more reliable. You wouldn't have to wonder if Column 79 would or wouldn't help us determine the cause if we had it in front of us.

No physical evidence = speculation. At least you were correct in calling NIST's conclusions hypothetical since there is no physical evidence to support it and cannot therefore, be considered theoretical.
Click to expand...

By this standard, any claim that the building ever existed at all would have to be considered speculation, a hypothetical conclusion, since there is no physical evidence to support it.
 
Red is the perfect denier. By not taking a stand, he allows for these events to forever be disputed, any theory is as good as the other. One thing missing and the whole thing is up for grabs, even if the sum of all the available evidence leads to thinking the building collapsed naturally, if one column hasn't been identified therefore any theory that challenges the whole story is equally valid. :rolleyes:

It's the "no holes, no Holocaust" fallacy.
 
RedIbis said:
So what I'm getting out of this is that most here don't think that physical evidence is required. Or if that physical evidence were presented, it wouldn't necessarily supporrt NIST's conclusions anyway, so it's not necessary.

Correct me if I'm wrong since I find this a very fascinating approach to skepticism and critical thinking.
Click to expand...

Did NASA recover the foam that punctured the space shuttle Columbia's carbon carbon wing??
 
Could someone calculate how much more explosive would be required to knock down a building if it wasn't gutted out first? Conventional demo prep takes out all the interior walls and cuts the bearing members to the point that the building is barely standing. My feeling is that if that wasn't done, there wouldn't be a window intact in lower Manhattan when [eeeeeevil voice] They [/eeeeeevil voice] pushed the button.
 
GStan said:
By this standard, any claim that the building ever existed at all would have to be considered speculation, a hypothetical conclusion, since there is no physical evidence to support it.
Click to expand...

Well that's entirely incorrect since there were steel samples recovered from WTC 7, just not any that support NIST's hypothesis.
 
RedIbis said:
Well that's entirely incorrect since there were steel samples recovered from WTC 7, just not any that support NIST's hypothesis.
Click to expand...

Ok, I'll play along. Lets say that the only physical evidence available at all, that is, physical evidence that would support any hypothesis, is the steel samples recovered from WTC7. What do you know about those samples that leads you to believe that they do not support NIST's hypothesis? Looking at them in a vacuum (as you obtusely seem to be doing), I don't think the samples would support any particular hypothesis more than another, even the Truther theories. Do the samples, on their own, support one theory over another?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom