NIST Releases FINAL WTC 7 Report - Nov. 20

[WildCat]

And in not one of these ridiculous analogies are hundreds of tons of material left behind. There was physical evidence, now there is not.

This must be what you guys call debunking.

What's there to debunk? You haven't even made a claim as to what you think happened.

NIST made a case, no truther has yet ofered a more plausible scenario. Certainly not you.

 

[A W Smith]

And in not one of these ridiculous analogies are hundreds of tons of material left behind.

Excuse me?

Titanic?
Hindenburg?
Columbia?

 

[RedIbis]

Excuse me?

Titanic?
Hindenburg?
Columbia?

Titanic - still on the ocean floor, and as anyone can see for themselves, the hull is badly buckled.
Hindenburg - I didn't see it mentioned in this thread and what would even be the point of bringing it up?
Columbia - from a link on wikipedia: "Incidents of debris strikes from ice and foam causing damage during take-off were already well known, and had actually damaged orbiters, most noticeably during STS-45, STS-27, and STS-87.[21]"

These analogies all fail. Find me the collapse of a building after thermal expansion caused column failure, and single column failure caused global collapse.

Good luck on that.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

NIST made a case, no truther has yet ofered a more plausible scenario. Certainly not you.

To put it more plainly, RedIbis has failed to "debunk" the NIST report.

 

[Pardalis]

Find me the collapse of a building after thermal expansion caused column failure, and single column failure caused global collapse.

Good luck on that.

No holes, no Holocaust eh?

Pathetic

 

[GStan]

Red does not even believe that AA77 hit the Pentagon, despite all the the plane parts that were found there and the body parts (matched by DNA testing) of passengers who were known to be on that plane, you know, the physical evidence.

Red does not care about the physical evidence. He only cares about using any possible gaps in evidence as an excuse to dismiss all the evidence that actually is available.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Titanic - still on the ocean floor, and as anyone can see for themselves, the hull is badly buckled.

However, if we go by the reasoning you applied to WTC 7, you would require the ice burg that sunk the ship. If we apply your standard of proof you would have to name one ship that has ever been sunk by an iceburg.

Columbia - from a link on wikipedia: "Incidents of debris strikes from ice and foam causing damage during take-off were already well known, and had actually damaged orbiters, most noticeably during STS-45, STS-27, and STS-87.[21]"

Of course you are unable to apply the same method of understanding to howthermal expansion, and thermal weakening are applied concerns in engineering and architectural works. Despite being shown a demonstration of what thermal expansion can do in extreme cases, you dismiss any kind of failure influenced by thermal expansion as impossible based solely on the idea that no building has ever suffered a catastrophic failure from it before.

You ignore that the length of spanning members magnifies the effect of it, you also fail to observe that connecting components in structures aren't universally designed to handle every variety of loading conditions on the planet.

If we apply the same standard you apply to WTC 7, despite the known fears, and cases of damage foam has inflicted on a shuttle, the fact that such impacts had never before created the conditions for break up upon re-entry should make such an event impossible.

These analogies all fail. Find me the collapse of a building after thermal expansion caused column failure, and single column failure caused global collapse.

Good luck on that.

Share your doubts when you get rid of that nasty predisposition you hold that lack of precedent = impossibility (appeal to common practice, or appeal to tradition, whatever you prefer to go by). I find your position rather hypocritical, given that for the space shuttle analogy:

- you appear to look at precedents in which foam break off has occurred but up until the Columbia incident had never fatally damaged the shuttle...

Why are you unable to apply the same form of analysis of the buildings?

 

[Pardalis]

Red is doing the same thing he did with flight 93, all over again:

To the very simple question of what would convince him that it crashed there, he finally muttered a semi response:

To answer your question more specifically, we would need to first find out where the wreckage (95% by CNN's account) is being stored. Can it be photographed? Can it be analyzed? Do any of the parts have serial numbers?

Same MO, same denial.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3956032#post3956032

 

[Pardalis]

Share your doubts when you get rid of that nasty predisposition you hold that lack of precedent = impossibility (appeal to common practice, or appeal to tradition, whatever you prefer to go by). I find your position rather hypocritical, given that for the space shuttle analogy:

- you appear to look at precedents in which foam break off has occurred but up until the Columbia incident had never fatally damaged the shuttle...

Why are you unable to apply the same form of analysis of the buildings?

Exactly.

Red, find me a shuttle accident besides Columbia that was caused by a piece of foam that was detached during liftoff, find me a mega boat that sunk because of an iceberg besides the Titanic, and find me one instance other than the Hindenburg where a Zeppelin crashed and burned.

Good luck

If you can't then we're perfectly allowed to assume these events didn't take place as we were told, right?

 

[RedIbis]

Red is doing the same thing he did with flight 93, all over again:

To the very simple question of what would convince him that it crashed there, he finally muttered a semi response:


Same MO, same denial.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3956032#post3956032

True, I tend to inquire of the physical evidence. You guys tend to make a lot of excuses for why it isn't available.

 

[Pardalis]

As someone pointed out earlier, where's the piece of foam that caused Columbia to explode in the atmosphere?

Was it ever found?

 

[RedIbis]

No holes, no Holocaust eh?

Pathetic

Truly one of the purest examples of the strawman fallacy, and a particularly disgusting one at that.

 

[Pardalis]

Truly one of the purest examples of the strawman fallacy, and a particularly disgusting one at that.

I'm not saying you're a Holocaust denier, I'm saying you're employing the same tactic.

Denial is a dangerous thing, the sooner you realize what you are doing, the better. You're putting your mind in a dangerous place. But I see you've been at it for more than a year straight, so I have no hope for you.

 

[jaydeehess]

And in not one of these ridiculous analogies are hundreds of tons of material left behind. There was physical evidence, now there is not.

This must be what you guys call debunking.

,,,,,and I asked you where the hundreds of tons of material should have been stored until it could be determined what specific parts should be looked at. I also asked you who should pay for the catalogueing and identification of each item.

The examples provided illustrate that computer sims are valid, and that in many cases the retention of 'physical evidence' is not required to arrive at valid conclusions about causality.

You have been asked to state exactly what you believe could be gained from an enormous and expensive catalogueing and storage of hundreds of tons of material. You still are very hesitant to venture an answer.

You have been asked for specific aspects of the computer FEA that you believe may be flawed,,,,,,,,,,silence on your part.

Instead all you bring to the table is more hand waving arguements.

 

[Pardalis]

He did the same thing in the flight 93 thread, the pieces of human flesh have been carefully analyzed by forensic experts, and yet he doesn't believe the plane crashed there.

So even if they had catalogued the debris from WTC7, he would still find a way to deny the collapse.

 

[jaydeehess]

Titanic - still on the ocean floor, and as anyone can see for themselves, the hull is badly buckled.

How do you know that an iceberg caused that buckling and not an explosive mounted on the hull?

Hindenburg - I didn't see it mentioned in this thread and what would even be the point of bringing it up?

The remains were not saved yet by computer sims it is now understood what most likely occured.

Columbia - from a link on wikipedia: "Incidents of debris strikes from ice and foam causing damage during take-off were already well known, and had actually damaged orbiters, most noticeably during STS-45, STS-27, and STS-87.[21]"

So until Columbia was fatally damaged by ice and foam impacts shuttles were not in danger because it had never caused a complete shuttle loss?

RI how was it determined just how that foam/ice impact caused the shuttle to burn up? Did they check out the debris and find a hole in the wing near the wheel well? No, they did not have the wing. How DID they do it? Hmmmm, must have been pure speculation.

These analogies all fail. Find me the collapse of a building after thermal expansion caused column failure, and single column failure caused global collapse.

Good luck on that.

There are a great many incidents of buckled steel caused by fire and partial collapses as a result. There were no incidents of a shuttle loss due to foam impacts until Columbia. After Columbia there was ONE example of such a loss and after 9/11/01 there was an example of a collapse due to fire of a very large steel structure.

You also misrepresent the NIST findings. Single column failure did not cause global collapse. The loss of several floors worth of lateral stability caused that global collapse.

One reason for the low number of shuttle losses is the low number of shuttles.
There are multiple instances of floor collapses due to fire. Few involve such long span large areas as in WTC 7 but that is due to the smaller number of buildings incorporating such large open spaces and the even smaller number of such that experienced major office fires. (similar to the low number of space shuttles)
.
The analogies, and IMO especially the Columbia senario, certainly do apply.

Your continued recalcitrance to even entertain the idea that NIST may be correct is, however, an epic fail driven by your political passions and prejudices.

 

[jaydeehess]

He did the same thing in the flight 93 thread, the pieces of human flesh have been carefully analyzed by forensic experts, and yet he doesn't believe the plane crashed there.

So even if they had catalogued the debris from WTC7, he would still find a way to deny the collapse.

That's because the TM finds it neccessary to mount the goalposts on a flatbed truck. That way they can claim to always be in the lead.

 

[A W Smith]

Redibis. do you accept the fact that the Columbia disaster was caused by the chunk of foam? will you even have the moral courage to admit that?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Redibis. do you accept the fact that the Columbia disaster was caused by the chunk of foam? will you even have the moral courage to admit that?

He's clearly ignoring the fact that he's been caught in some pretty blatant hypocrisy by denying those examples (Titanic, Colmbia, etc.) as valid comparisons. The Columbia slip-up of his is particularly damning.

Just to lay it out for others:

• WTC7 collapses due to loss of structural integrity caused by thermal expansion.
• Columbia burns up in the atmosphere due to loss of structural integrity caused by foam impact.

• RedIbis denies that thermal expansion could cause global collapse, because it's never happened before, and because we lack a "critical" and primary piece of physical evidence (column 79), despite acknowledging (or, at least, not denying) that thermal expansion is a known phenomenon.
• RedIbis accepts that a Shuttle can burn up in the atmosphere upon reentry, despite it having never happened before, and despite our lack of a "critical" and primary piece of physical evidence (the damaged wing). He accepts this simply because impact of foam is a known phenomenon.

Really, RedIbis... you're cracking.

 

[Heiwa]

yeah, yeah, yeah, all the personell at NIST are either bought off. threatened or 'in-on-it'.............

Did you just remove column 79 or did you actually model what the NIST report hypthisises as having occured? That is that the floor beams and girders splipped away from their seats and crashed through the flooring below removing several floor's worth of lateral support from column 79?

Since you are familiar with the use of lateral support you also incorporated this loss of several floor's worth of loss into your FEA. No, you did not. Atleast its not even mentioned on your link. BTW that link also does not show this supposed FEA unless by "finite" you mean 'extremely limited'

Now, who do you think we will believe is competant to do a proper job of such an FEA, NIST with a phalanx of engineers with relevent training and experience, or you who cannot seem to understand basic physics sometimes and who apparently has training in naval engineering?

If you read my article you see that NIST suggests that the structure collapses completely, if you remove column 79 between floors 11/13. Falling debris and other local failures of floor beams/girders connected to column 79 above floors 11/13 are irrelevant. So I remove column 79 between floors 11/13 and there is no collapse! Just 6800 tons of weight carried by column 79 is redistributed to adjacent columns via floor beams/girders, as expected; the column stresses increase from <30% yield to <37.5% yield.

As every inner column is supported by four floor girders/beams at every floor level they can never lose any lateral support if column 79 fails locally. The connections are much too strong for that. They do not slip away from the adjacent columns. And if they do, no load is transmitted! The load of column 79 just drops to the ground and the rest of the structure remains standing.
Tertiary floor beams may slip off from the secondary floor girders = debris of no importance.

Yes, I think NIST is doing a lousy work. NIST doesn't know much about structural damage analysis! BTW - my education is shipbuilding = a lot of complex structural analysis = much more complicated than simple steel tower structures. I have done 100's of intact structural analysis by FEA but also some structural damage analysis, where you have to re-analyse after each failure. The latter takes time. The NIST analysis with parts flying around is just Hollywood stuff. No serious structural engineer ca re-do the NIST analysis.
Actually FEA is just structural analysis. Failures have to be treated and analysed separately and then you have to re-do the analysis, step by step. Each failure requires energy and NIST does not keep track of failures/energies, etc. Quite sad, actually.

Thus my suspicion that Shyman Sunder is a terrorist! He destroys the work of serious structural analysts!