NIST Denies Access to WTC7 Data

[Dave Rogers]

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?

Remember, we're using the charges you think were used on WTC7, that can remove all the structural resistance of the building and allow it to drop in freefall. I'm not the one claiming those charges exist; you are. So, if the top part starts to lean, there isn't any structure for it to hit, at least not that can provide any resistance; that's implicit in your claim. And it started 100 metres up one and a half seconds ago, so no part of it can fall far enough to hit the ground within the half-second before the final charge goes off. So, we've removed all the supports one after another, not simultaneously, and the building's at least 80 metres up in the air with no support, no structure to slow it, but apparently, according to you, it still can't drop at freefall because the supports weren't removed simultaneously. Why not?

Dave

 

[cmatrix]

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.

I was not saying you were suggesting rocket motors on the top of the building were forcing it downwards. I was merely being precise. I was not talking about WTC 7 or any building in particular just a hypothetical scenario. If a building had weakened lower structure and part of another building came crashing down on the first with just the right mass the first building could conceivably accelerate downward at G. Large precisely fired engines would also do this as well as many other things. That you find my precision so hilarious says far more about you than me.

 

[cmatrix]

Remember, we're using the charges you think were used on WTC7, that can remove all the structural resistance of the building and allow it to drop in freefall. I'm not the one claiming those charges exist; you are. So, if the top part starts to lean, there isn't any structure for it to hit, at least not that can provide any resistance; that's implicit in your claim. And it started 100 metres up one and a half seconds ago, so no part of it can fall far enough to hit the ground within the half-second before the final charge goes off. So, we've removed all the supports one after another, not simultaneously, and the building's at least 80 metres up in the air with no support, no structure to slow it, but apparently, according to you, it still can't drop at freefall because the supports weren't removed simultaneously. Why not?

Dave

No you're not remembering. You're forgetting that in my scenario to remove all the structure on a floor each column has to be blown simultaneously. As far as I can tell you're doing this vertically for each column not horizontaly for each floor. It's a completely different scenario. You're mixing apples and oranges and expecting lemonade. When the building leans in your scenario it's hitting structure that has not yet been removed because you're blowing the columns non-simultaneously.

I'm guessing 50 or so posts and you'll finally figure it out and then try to change the subject.

 

[DGM]

You're forgetting that in my scenario to remove all the structure on a floor each column has to be blown simultaneously. .

In an attempt to follow this. Are you saying that every column on eight floors were wired in order to explain what was observed?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I was not saying you were suggesting rocket motors on the top of the building were forcing it downwards.

What other "downward forces" do you think could play a part in any given building collapse?

I was merely being precise.

Which of the forces you have [hopefully] enumerated in response to my question above do you feel are so common that you believe such precision to be necessary?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

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.

I'm not addressing Dave's thought experiment. I am addressing the ridiculous notion that an entire area of structure has to be utterly "removed" as you claim it must necessarily be in order to fail. A change in the load path will necessarily have an impact on how efficiently the remaining structure can carry what's above it.

Your responses to his thought experiment however are quite revealing because inherently this is one of numerous things that need to be considered. You're suggesting that only explosives can cause it to collapse, this is absolutely wrong, a change in the way the load is applied can cause it. Something you don't seem to keen on.

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

Thank you for reiterating. I find them very accurate representations of the arguments you have posted so far.

 

[triforcharity]

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.

No, you're full of ****.

NIST did say that the buckling occured.

No, NIST did not claim that the FFA occured during collapse iniation. You wouldn't know what a strawman argument was if it kicked you in the ass and left a note.

Again, NIST did NOT say that all 58 perimeter columns buckled causing the FFA.

YOU are claiming that. Not NIST.

 

[cmatrix]

I'm not addressing Dave's thought experiment. I am addressing the ridiculous notion that an entire area of structure has to be utterly "removed" as you claim it must necessarily be in order to fail. A change in the load path will necessarily have an impact on how efficiently the remaining structure can carry what's above it.

Your responses to his thought experiment however are quite revealing because inherently this is one of numerous things that need to be considered. You're suggesting that only explosives can cause it to collapse, this is absolutely wrong, a change in the way the load is applied can cause it. Something you don't seem to keen on.


Thank you for reiterating. I find them very accurate representations of the arguments you have posted so far.

Yeah that's right that you're not responding to Dave's zany "thought experiment". That is the whole problem. That is your glaring mistake. You blindly lumbered into this discussion between Dave and I babbling on about how I was not accounting for load paths. See here. Follow the little red arrows on this post to get there.

Not only that but you're also posting complete falsehoods and responding to them instead of things I have actually said. I have never said that an entire area of structure has to be utterly removed in order to fail. I said every support column on a floor must be removed at once to have free fall.

I have also never said that only explosives can cause buildings to collapse as you falsely claim. Feel free to prove me wrong though.

You have tried to portray me as someone who doesn't know what I'm talking about. Instead I've proven that about you.

 

[cmatrix]

No, you're full of ****.

NIST did say that the buckling occured.

No, NIST did not claim that the FFA occured during collapse iniation. You wouldn't know what a strawman argument was if it kicked you in the ass and left a note.

Again, NIST did NOT say that all 58 perimeter columns buckled causing the FFA.

YOU are claiming that. Not NIST.

Someone's full of **** but it's sure not me. I didn't say NIST claimed the FFA occurred during collapse initiation. I said NIST said the buckling resulted in the FFA. Again it is you attacking a straw man, not me.

NIST said all exterior (perimeter) columns buckled at the same time. Any reasonable person can do a search on the word buckling in the NIST document to verify.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

To start with:

I have never said that an entire area of structure has to be utterly removed in order to fail.

My mistake, I used entirely the wrong word and it's inexcusable. My apologies. You indeed stated that freefall only happens with simultaneous destruction of columns. While I think the statement is entirely stupid regardless, there is nevertheless no justification for rewording, intentional or not. A failure to acknowledge this would make me no better than those I criticize, and I'm sincerely sorry for not reading your post.

Next:

I have also never said that only explosives can cause buildings to collapse as you falsely claim. Feel free to prove me wrong though.

You do however claim by a spurious resemblance that WTC 7 must have been a CD, and you have invoked the "first time in history" argument to support it. That because no other fire has initiated a total failure of the building structure the only other comparable was with explosives. If I again misrepresented you there then I'm sorry, but I disagree on this front.

Now:

You have tried to portray me as someone who doesn't know what I'm talking about. Instead I've proven that about you.

Now then getting back to this

This is the post I originally responded to:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6519518#post6519518

No your building will not be in free fall. It won't have support but it will be encountering resistance from hitting the massive pieces of unbroken structure.

Which prompted me to talk to you about load paths. This was the statement I was addressing. This statement you made is still wrong for the reasons I've already outlined here:

Columns provide negligible support once they've started buckling. They have negligible capacity when the load is off-center at a moment which is not designed to withstand moment forces.

In other words the structure below doesn't need to be "broken." fact of the matter is once a portion buckles it is by definition, out of axis with the weight it's transferring which is normally "straight down to the ground." Had you opted to refer to the PDF I provided you would have found information pertinent to what I was talking about and you ignored it. You've also flip flopped on your freefall claim. You apparently also had no idea about the terminology and instead of stating you were mistaken and moved on you stated I was using spurious jargon purely to discredit you. It's as I said, an important factor that you're not considering any time you make the "simultaneous failure claim."

If you still think this isn't true:

Columns provide negligible support once they've started buckling. They have negligible capacity when the load is off-center at a moment which is not designed to withstand moment forces.

I'm more than willing to provide an actual resource which talks about this specifically, should you be concerned that my mistake will repeat itself.

 

[triforcharity]

Someone's full of **** but it's sure not me. I didn't say NIST claimed the FFA occurred during collapse initiation. I said NIST said the buckling resulted in the FFA. Again it is you attacking a straw man, not me.

NIST said all exterior (perimeter) columns buckled at the same time. Any reasonable person can do a search on the word buckling in the NIST document to verify.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1A.pdf

Page 65. What does it say? Oh. Right. Not what you think it does.

Page 81-82. Again, not what you think.

Page 87 also does not say what you think it does.

Maybe it's reading comprehension that is your problem?

 

[beachnut]

No you're not remembering. You're forgetting that in my scenario to remove all the structure on a floor each column has to be blown simultaneously. As far as I can tell you're doing this vertically for each column not horizontaly for each floor. It's a completely different scenario. You're mixing apples and oranges and expecting lemonade. When the building leans in your scenario it's hitting structure that has not yet been removed because you're blowing the columns non-simultaneously.

I'm guessing 50 or so posts and you'll finally figure it out and then try to change the subject.

911 truth takes fantasy and mixes in delusional claims of CD with failed physics and expects reality without evidence. 9 years of failure for 911 truth, and your best work, a weak insult in your signature.

Fire and gravity. Given the answer 911 truth prefers delusions of CD. Where did the penthouse go in your fantasy world of CD? What will you do with the NIST data?

 

[Dave Rogers]

No you're not remembering. You're forgetting that in my scenario to remove all the structure on a floor each column has to be blown simultaneously. As far as I can tell you're doing this vertically for each column not horizontaly for each floor. It's a completely different scenario. You're mixing apples and oranges and expecting lemonade. When the building leans in your scenario it's hitting structure that has not yet been removed because you're blowing the columns non-simultaneously.

Fine. But, half a second later, all the resistance of that remaining structure is then removed by the remaining charges. We then have no lower structure remaining to resist the upper structure. The upper structure must therefore be in freefall, even though the columns have not been blown simultaneously.

I think 50 posts is an underestimate, actually. I don't think you'll ever get it.

Dave

 

[cmatrix]

This is the post I originally responded to:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6519518#post6519518



Which prompted me to talk to you about load paths. This was the statement I was addressing. This statement you made is still wrong for the reasons I've already outlined here:


In other words the structure below doesn't need to be "broken." fact of the matter is once a portion buckles it is by definition, out of axis with the weight it's transferring which is normally "straight down to the ground." Had you opted to refer to the PDF I provided you would have found information pertinent to what I was talking about and you ignored it. You've also flip flopped on your freefall claim. You apparently also had no idea about the terminology and instead of stating you were mistaken and moved on you stated I was using spurious jargon purely to discredit you. It's as I said, an important factor that you're not considering any time you make the "simultaneous failure claim."

If you still think this isn't true:

I'm more than willing to provide an actual resource which talks about this specifically, should you be concerned that my mistake will repeat itself.

You appear to have a massive reading comprehension problem. Again you claim buckling and load paths have something to do with the issue Dave and I are discussing: columns being removed by explosives. They don't. Columns removed by explosives provide no support. You claim buckled columns provide neglibible support. So? What in wide world of sports is your damn point? What you clearly are doing is using spurious jargon in a pathetic attempt to make it look like I've made some error and that you haven't. You're trying to dig your way out of a hole when you could just climb out by admiting your mistakes or even just by keeping quiet.

Then to top it off you also now state the complete falsehood I have flip-flopped on my free fall claim. I haven't in any way. You ridiculously attempt to prove this falsehood by trotting out another falsehood made by Dave and exposed here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6533543&postcount=393

 

[cmatrix]

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1A.pdf

Page 65. What does it say? Oh. Right. Not what you think it does.

Page 81-82. Again, not what you think.

Page 87 also does not say what you think it does.

Maybe it's reading comprehension that is your problem?

The problem is not reading comprehension on my part it is logical comprehension on your part.

Why don't you explicitly state what you think NIST is saying. The buckling had to occur before the free fall period. I think TFK claimed it could have occurred in a .7 second period before free fall. During the free fall period all corners of WTC 7 were descending at the same rate. That means simultaneous buckling of all 58 perimiter columns. (.7s / 58 = negligible) The buckling has to occur over eight stories because simultaneous buckling floor by floor is physically impossible in a free fall scenario.

NIST doesn't state explicitly that all perimeter columns buckled over eight stories at the same time to enable free fall. Because if they did competent and conscionable physicists and engineers would call for their heads. However the fact that WTC 7 was in free fall and all four corners descended at the same rate means that's what their completely unsupported pronouncements imply.

 

[cmatrix]

Fine. But, half a second later, all the resistance of that remaining structure is then removed by the remaining charges. We then have no lower structure remaining to resist the upper structure. The upper structure must therefore be in freefall, even though the columns have not been blown simultaneously.

I think 50 posts is an underestimate, actually. I don't think you'll ever get it.

Dave

Actually you are right. In this scenario, if each column was cut on every floor simultaneously on the vertical, the leaning structure would be in free fall after the last column was was removed. But it is free falling with a massive lean not straight down. Now how on Earth does this ridiculous waste of time have anything whatsoever to do with WTC 7 which did not lean over?

 

[triforcharity]

The problem is not reading comprehension on my part it is logical comprehension on your part.

Why don't you explicitly state what you think NIST is saying. The buckling had to occur before the free fall period. I think TFK claimed it could have occurred in a .7 second period before free fall. During the free fall period all corners of WTC 7 were descending at the same rate. That means simultaneous buckling of all 58 perimiter columns. (.7s / 58 = negligible) The buckling has to occur over eight stories because simultaneous buckling floor by floor is physically impossible in a free fall scenario.

NIST doesn't state explicitly that all perimeter columns buckled over eight stories at the same time to enable free fall. Because if they did competent and conscionable physicists and engineers would call for their heads. However the fact that WTC 7 was in free fall and all four corners descended at the same rate means that's what their completely unsupported pronouncements imply.

You didn't read **** did you?

I think it's more of a laziness problem....

 

[cmatrix]

You didn't read **** did you?

I think it's more of a laziness problem....

You didn't read my analysis did you? Here it is again:

The buckling had to occur before the free fall period. I think TFK claimed it could have occurred in a .7 second period before free fall. During the free fall period all corners of WTC 7 were descending at the same rate. That means simultaneous buckling of all 58 perimeter columns. (.7s / 58 = negligible) The buckling has to occur over eight stories because simultaneous buckling floor by floor is physically impossible in a free fall scenario.

NIST doesn't state explicitly that all perimeter columns buckled over eight stories at the same time to enable free fall. Because if they did competent and conscionable physicists and engineers would call for their heads. However the fact that WTC 7 was in free fall and all four corners descended at the same rate means that's what their completely unsupported pronouncements imply.

If you disagree with this fact-based analysis but can't explain why, this means that your position is faith-based not fact-based.

 

[triforcharity]

You didn't read my analysis did you? Here it is again:

The buckling had to occur before the free fall period. I think TFK claimed it could have occurred in a .7 second period before free fall. During the free fall period all corners of WTC 7 were descending at the same rate. That means simultaneous buckling of all 58 perimeter columns. (.7s / 58 = negligible) The buckling has to occur over eight stories because simultaneous buckling floor by floor is physically impossible in a free fall scenario.

NIST doesn't state explicitly that all perimeter columns buckled over eight stories at the same time to enable free fall. Because if they did competent and conscionable physicists and engineers would call for their heads. However the fact that WTC 7 was in free fall and all four corners descended at the same rate means that's what their completely unsupported pronouncements imply.

If you disagree with this fact-based analysis but can't explain why, this means that your position is faith-based not fact-based.

You didn't read my link, did you? I even quoted the relevant pages.

I read you word salad, but it needed a little rasberry vinegrette dressing. Slightly dry. Needs some fresh greens too.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Actually you are right.

At last. Thank you.

In this scenario, if each column was cut on every floor simultaneously on the vertical, the leaning structure would be in free fall after the last column was was removed. But it is free falling with a massive lean not straight down.

Exactly. If you'll consult the handy chart I posted, this means that you believe it is the lack of tilt, rather than the period of freefall, which leads you to conclude that the columns were severed simultaneously.

Now how on Earth does this ridiculous waste of time have anything whatsoever to do with WTC 7 which did not lean over?

It has to do with it in that WTC7 did lean over, demonstrating that the columns were not severed simultaneously.

Dave