NIST Denies Access to WTC7 Data

Sure, it would be true regardless of whether or not anyone ever said it at all.
 
kylebisme said:
Sure, it would be true regardless of whether or not anyone ever said it at all.
Click to expand...

So how, specifically, should a steel high-rise act, and how does it differ from NIST's model or any of the other bajillion papers on the topic? No incredulity please. And none of the 'never in history' garbage. Nobody has ever been able to answer this question.
 
Last edited:
kylebisme said:
No it really doesn't work like that, which again is why in reality steel frame hire-rises don't react to fires anything like NIST's models, the one with impact damage or otherwise.
Click to expand...
How would you know? You are not a structural engineer, you are not an engineer, you are a poster of delusions, at a skeptic forum, most ironic.

You don't understand models and you have proved that as a solid fact, and you keep proving it.
 
kylebisme said:
No it really doesn't work like that, which again is why in reality steel frame hire-rises don't react to fires anything like NIST's models, the one with impact damage or otherwise.
Click to expand...

Please see excaza's excellent rebuttal.

It is sad. Admit you're wrong. You can't. It would destroy your truther world. If you questioned your inability to understand a computer model and why it's relevant, you would have to question everything else.

Again: Do you think an engineer testing a virtual engine design for an overheat has to wait for it to warm up from a cold start? And yes, it's the same idea. Would you say the test doesn't reflect the real world cause the virtual engine didn't include a starter?

You clearly don't understand the reasons why one would build this or any model, how it comes together, and how it makes the process very efficient. You have no business arguing this issue.
 
kylebisme said:
Again, there are plenty of real world examples which demonstrate as much [...]
Click to expand...


Such as? You keep hinting that all this awesome information exists, but you never seem overly willing to produce it up front to support your claims.
 
Last edited:
kylebisme said:
Again, there are plenty of real world examples which demonstrate as much, while all you've got is your faith in NIST's claims about their model and hot air to suggest otherwise.
Click to expand...
Prove it, present a model which shows a steel building will not fail in fire not fought. Prove your claim. Don't need NIST to understand fire and buildings. You have to attack NIST because you can't do anything else but make up lies.

When will you have your model ready?
 
cmatrix said:
I did not state that only simultaneous destruction of supports will result in free fall.
Click to expand...
Really?
cmatrix said:
I know that the building could only be in free fall if all supports were removed simultaneously.
Click to expand...


This is the problem with lying all the time; eventually, you can't keep track of the lies.

cmatrix said:
This is one of the most entertaining cases of neurotic projection I've seen in a while.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

Dave
 
Last edited:
cmatrix said:
So all 58 perimeter columns buckled simultaneously over eight entire stories and this process involved no resistance?

stu·pid
–adjective
1. lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind; dull.
2. characterized by or proceeding from mental dullness; foolish; senseless: a stupid question.
3. tediously dull, esp. due to lack of meaning or sense; inane; pointless: a stupid party.
Click to expand...

Nobody from NIST said that all 58 perimeter columns buckled. Only a small PORTION of the NORTH face fell at FFA.

Strawman argument

A straw man argument is to deliberately mischaracterize your opponent's argument. In effect you are building a false debate opponent, a 'straw man' to argue against.

I see what you did there.
 
kylebisme said:
Of course applying the effects in a realistic time frame would have affected the model very differently, which is why in reality steel frame hire-rises don't react to fires anything like NIST's models, the one with impact damage or otherwise.
Click to expand...

Anything OTHER than your own personal beliefs?
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Columns provide neglible support once they've started buckling. They have neglible capacity when the load is off-center at a moment which is not designed to withstand moment forces.
Click to expand...

But we're not talking about buckling in this discussion that you blindly stumbled into. We're talking about Dave's wacky "thought experiment" involving a building's support columns cut non-simultaneously with explosives and yet still attaining free fall. The support is removed by explosives not buckling. Get it now? You made a huge mistake and I caught you on it.

Here's some quotes of yours made about me in this discussion others will find interesting:

"Your logic fails here. Instead of winging it I would suggest getting a book which talks about load paths. You especially need to take a lesson on eccentric loading. For all that is sane actually study what you're talking about!!!!"

"It's plainly obvious that while lecturing me of all people you've done absolutely no background research on it. Having joined in this kind of talk you have absolutely no excuse for not having studied it before jumping in. As far as I'm concerned the accusation that I'm posting big words to simply "discredit" you is nothing more than an excuse, you are genuinely unqualified to be telling other people they're wrong, having done nothing on your own time to study."
 
cmatrix said:
But we're not talking about buckling in this discussion that you blindly stumbled into. We're talking about Dave's wacky "thought experiment" involving a building's support columns cut non-simultaneously with explosives and yet still attaining free fall. The support is removed by explosives not buckling. Get it now? You made a huge mistake and I caught you on it.

Here's some quotes of yours made about me in this discussion others will find interesting:

"Your logic fails here. Instead of winging it I would suggest getting a book which talks about load paths. You especially need to take a lesson on eccentric loading. For all that is sane actually study what you're talking about!!!!"

"It's plainly obvious that while lecturing me of all people you've done absolutely no background research on it. Having joined in this kind of talk you have absolutely no excuse for not having studied it before jumping in. As far as I'm concerned the accusation that I'm posting big words to simply "discredit" you is nothing more than an excuse, you are genuinely unqualified to be telling other people they're wrong, having done nothing on your own time to study."
Click to expand...
Will you have the same failed arguments in 9 years? Are you shooting for 18 years of failure, or 20? Your ideas are nonsense.

Your failure to publish your claptrap is proof you have nothing of substance to add to 911. Have you published your failed ideas yet? No
 
Dave Rogers said:
Really?



This is the problem with lying all the time; eventually, you can't keep track of the lies.



Indeed.

Dave
Click to expand...

Yes really. I did not state that only simultaneous destruction of a building's supports will result in free fall. Because for example, there could be a force other than gravity acting downward. I did say that WTC 7 could only be in free fall if all supports were removed simultaneously. Because there was no obvious other force than gravity acting downward. So once again it is actually you who is misstating the truth by taking my statements out of context. If anyone is lying it is you.
 
cmatrix said:
"The charges are specified as sufficient to remove all resistance." What? A 100M high building brought down with charges in only three locations on each column removes all resistance? ROFL In order for a "thought experiment" to be valid it must be at least in some way consistent with reality. Can it be that you actually think the only possible resistance to a falling object is from what is holding it up? Shaped charges used in CD only cut columns where they are placed. They don't pulverize all the concrete and steel for 33M.
Click to expand...

Then let's re-jig the thought experiment so that the building uses the same kind of charges you think were used in WTC7 - you know, the ones that remove all support from below the falling block and allow it to fall at freefall. Let's place them over 100m of the structure instead of the 20m you think they were placed over. Now let's detonate them, one after another, at quarter-second intervals. ETA: Let's also assume (I can't believe I'm typing this!) that gravity is the only significant downward force acting on the building.

Now, either it's possible for these charges to exist, or it isn't possible for these charges to exist. If it's possible for such charges to exist, the supports have been removed, but not simultaneously, and the building cannot have fallen more than 20 metres between the first and last explosions; therefore, it's got 80 metres more to fall before it encounters any resistance. Therefore, you must be wrong about simultaneous removal of support being the only thing that can make a building drop at freefall acceleration. Alternatively, if you're seriously arguing that it isn't possible for such charges to exist, then you're arguing against your own theory that explosives caused the near-freefall drop.

Has the penny dropped yet? And at what rate did it accelerate?

Dave
 
Last edited:
Bull *** Cma.

You said, WORD FOR WORD, what you are NOW claiming that you DIDN'T say?

How much more blatent of a liar must you be?

Show how it was taken out of context.
 
cmatrix said:
Yes really. I did not state that only simultaneous destruction of a building's supports will result in free fall. Because for example, there could be a force other than gravity acting downward. I did say that WTC 7 could only be in free fall if all supports were removed simultaneously. Because there was no obvious other force than gravity acting downward. So once again it is actually you who is misstating the truth by taking my statements out of context. If anyone is lying it is you.
Click to expand...

:dl::dl::dl::dl::dl::dl:

Please amend my previous posts to include the stipulation that gravity is the only downward force acting on the buildings. I honestly never considered that you might be idiotic enough to believe or dishonest enough to pretend that I was suggesting rocket motors on the top of the building forcing it downwards, but clearly I underestimated you.
 
Jeebus, is cmatrix capable of the most basic level of shame? He's standing on a chair in the pantry with his arm up to the elbow in the cookie jar, and, as he tells his mom in a muffled voice that he wasn't eating cookies, the cookie crumbs are flying out of his mouth and hitting her in the face.

Dave
 
triforcharity said:
Nobody from NIST said that all 58 perimeter columns buckled. Only a small PORTION of the NORTH face fell at FFA.

Strawman argument

A straw man argument is to deliberately mischaracterize your opponent's argument. In effect you are building a false debate opponent, a 'straw man' to argue against.

I see what you did there.
Click to expand...

Yes they did. NIST proclaimed that buckling occurred at the bottom of the building. This is their explanation for collapse initiation and would therefore have to be the cause of the free fall period. Note that they could have easily supported this proclamation by producing the 58 buckled perimeter columns. But they produce not a single one.

So no strawman and the only mischaracterization of an argument was from you.
 
why are you still assuming the entire building was in free fall?
 
Dave Rogers said:
Then let's re-jig the thought experiment so that the building uses the same kind of charges you think were used in WTC7 - you know, the ones that remove all support from below the falling block and allow it to fall at freefall. Let's place them over 100m of the structure instead of the 20m you think they were placed over. Now let's detonate them, one after another, at quarter-second intervals. ETA: Let's also assume (I can't believe I'm typing this!) that gravity is the only significant downward force acting on the building.

Now, either it's possible for these charges to exist, or it isn't possible for these charges to exist. If it's possible for such charges to exist, the supports have been removed, but not simultaneously, and the building cannot have fallen more than 20 metres between the first and last explosions; therefore, it's got 80 metres more to fall before it encounters any resistance. Therefore, you must be wrong about simultaneous removal of support being the only thing that can make a building drop at freefall acceleration. Alternatively, if you're seriously arguing that it isn't possible for such charges to exist, then you're arguing against your own theory that explosives caused the near-freefall drop.

Has the penny dropped yet? And at what rate did it accelerate?

Dave
Click to expand...

Good grief. Even if you put cutter charges on the middle of the columns on each floor, the building is still not going to free fall. What happens when you get to one or two columns left on a floor? Its going to lean in the direction of the weak point. When it leans part of the structure is going to hit something else (other structure or the ground) and encounter resistance. How hard is this to follow?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom