NIST Denies Access to WTC7 Data

cmatrix said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's where your position becomes faith-based. A single buckle can, quite trivially, have any length up to the length of the element buckling. A single eight-storey buckle is in no way implausible.

Dave
 
cmatrix said:
You appear to have a massive reading comprehension problem.
Click to expand...
I apologized already for the one area where I altered your text.

cmatrix said:
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?
Click to expand...
That specifically, no explosives were necessary to initiate the collapse, and once the collapse begun there was absolutely no stopping it.

cmatrix said:
What you clearly are doing
Click to expand...
What I'm clearly "doing" is pointing out that buckling will result in the same phenomenon that you for whatever reason are taking issue with - the speed of the collapse.

I used "load path" to describe that a particular load will be handled differently by a support when the direction of that load is changed. In a typical design, the weight of a floor will be transferred through a vertical column that provides a direct path to the ground.

If you think "load path" is too broad then think about eccentric loading - meaning off-center or uneven. This is what the buckling action in a structure causes:


The interior collapse, which BTW preceded this 8 story drop you continue to have issues with causes the eccentricity. As internal structure fails the loads have to be redistributed to compensate, and eventually at least one of two things happen:

Either the structure becomes unstable

or

The structure has insufficient support remaining to avoid collapse

You may be disputing whether or not the building leaned during the collapse, which irrelevant because it did, but the entire issue began when the interior collapse began a good 8 seconds or so before the exterior started falling.

cmatrix said:
You appear to have a massive reading comprehension problem
Click to expand...
Speaking of which we have the November Stundie nominations in the main conspiracy section. You can submit any gems you find there.
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
At last. Thank you.



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.



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

Dave
Click to expand...

WTC 7 didn't lean over, it rolled within its footprint to the south towards the WTC tower rubble and away from valuable undamaged property to the north. This is the exact behavior you would want in a CD. And the roll didn't happen till after the free fall period.
 
Dave Rogers said:
That's where your position becomes faith-based. A single buckle can, quite trivially, have any length up to the length of the element buckling. A single eight-storey buckle is in no way implausible.

Dave
Click to expand...

We discussing WTC 7 remember. If all columns buckled simultaneously over only one floor, the floor above will have no support so no buckling would happen above. The floor below would now have no load so no buckling here either. The upper block will be in free fall until it hits the lower structure which provides resistance and thus stops the free fall. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Who's position is faith-based now?
 
cmatrix said:
WTC 7 didn't lean over, it rolled within its footprint to the south towards the WTC tower rubble and away from valuable undamaged property to the north. This is the exact behavior you would want in a CD. And the roll didn't happen till after the free fall period.
Click to expand...

Actually you're wrong on all 4 counts. It didn't go into it's own footprint, it damaged nearby buildings surrounding it, there isn't any evidence of a CD & what about the free fall period that didn't happen?

How many times are you gonna spew this BS to the public? Aren't you aware that you're not getting anywhere with this subject you created?? :boxedin:
 
DGM said:
Why do you think?
Click to expand...

Well I definitely think the two observable collapses; simulated and actual are different in their behavior.

The model is ****, but it doesn't prove **** either.

Do not swear in your posts, and do not attempt to defeat the autocensor.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163
 
Last edited by a moderator:
cmatrix said:
WTC 7 didn't lean over, it rolled within its footprint to the south
Click to expand...

This demonstrates just how far you're prepared to twist reality to fit your delusions. To the rest of us, it's perfectly clear that a building which starts out vertical, and then rolls, is by definition leaning. Somehow, in your world, a building can roll while remaing upright. Euclid is turning in his grave. But call it a roll or a lean, it still means that the building was rotating, which means there was a turning moment, which means there was resistance from some columns but not from others. So the roll (if that's what you want to call it) demonstrates that the column failures weren't simultaneous. As does the kink, of course.

cmatrix said:
We discussing WTC 7 remember. If all columns buckled simultaneously over only one floor, the floor above will have no support so no buckling would happen above. The floor below would now have no load so no buckling here either. The upper block will be in free fall until it hits the lower structure which provides resistance and thus stops the free fall. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Who's position is faith-based now?
Click to expand...

Yours. What earthly reason do you have to suppose that the columns initially buckled over a single floor?

Look, here's a picture.



Since the floors were all more or less gone - remember, the interior collapsed first - why do you think the exterior columns couldn't have buckled like this?

That's all it needs for 2.25 seconds of near-freefall, now that we know that there's no reason to believe the column failures were simultaneous.

Dave
 
cmatrix said:
WTC 7 didn't lean over, it rolled within its footprint to the south towards the WTC tower rubble and away from valuable undamaged property to the north. This is the exact behavior you would want in a CD. And the roll didn't happen till after the free fall period.
Click to expand...

So Fitterman Hall and and The Verizon Building are just rubble?

Hardly.
 
cmatrix said:
Because it's impossible to model WTC 7 as a fire-initiated gravity-driven collapse. If it was possible they would have done it. Even computer models have to obey the laws of physics. The NIST theory is crackpot pseudo-science at its worst.
Click to expand...

When will you be submitting your paper showing NIST wrong to a respectable, properly peer-reviewed journal?

You do that looking at a single side of the building is not going to show the other sides, right?
 
cmatrix said:
WTC 7 didn't lean over, it rolled within its footprint to the south towards the WTC tower rubble and away from valuable undamaged property to the north.
Click to expand...


...Huh?

http://skepticwiki.org/images/thumb/6/63/Damage_caused_by_WTC7.jpg/250px-Damage_caused_by_WTC7.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Fiterman_hall_damage.jpg

And some additional damage caused by the uncontrolled collapse of WTC7:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/193/492203092_b413af7d80_o.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/225/492203020_1c6ead779e_o.jpg

This is the exact behavior you would want in a CD.
Click to expand...


No... I don't believe what you see above is what anyone intelligent person would want from a professional, controlled demolition.
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
This demonstrates just how far you're prepared to twist reality to fit your delusions. To the rest of us, it's perfectly clear that a building which starts out vertical, and then rolls, is by definition leaning. Somehow, in your world, a building can roll while remaing upright. Euclid is turning in his grave. But call it a roll or a lean, it still means that the building was rotating, which means there was a turning moment, which means there was resistance from some columns but not from others. So the roll (if that's what you want to call it) demonstrates that the column failures weren't simultaneous. As does the kink, of course.



Yours. What earthly reason do you have to suppose that the columns initially buckled over a single floor?

Look, here's a picture.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_147644cdb0a2969963.jpg[/qimg]

Since the floors were all more or less gone - remember, the interior collapsed first - why do you think the exterior columns couldn't have buckled like this?

That's all it needs for 2.25 seconds of near-freefall, now that we know that there's no reason to believe the column failures were simultaneous.

Dave
Click to expand...

Let's see just how far you are prepared to twist reality to fit your delusions. Notice I said "lean over". In your CD scenario, the building tips over like a tree falling. This is very different behavior that what we see in WTC 7, a roll within its footprint. Something that curls in on itself is a roll not a lean. Then you actually have the audacity to claim that I believe "a building can roll while remaining upright" simply because I recognize this glaring distinction of the two different types of behavior. Spock must be turning in his grave.

A simultaneous eight story buckle of all 58 perimeter columns of WTC 7 was in fact impossible. The floors were not more or less gone before the free fall. The remaining core columns had to have been supporting the floors. Otherwise the floors would have pulled down causing deformations to the exterior. There is however no movement besides the roof bow seen on the exterior prior to free fall. To cause the bow these remaining core columns therefore had to have been removed a fraction of a second before the free fall. More likely the bow was caused by blowing the remaining core columns and the middle perimeter columns at the same time.

You have not in any way shown that the column failures could have been non-simultaneous. Since during free fall all the four corners descended at the same rate (i.e. the building was moving straight down with no roll) the failures in fact had to be simultaneous.
 
triforcharity said:
So Fitterman Hall and and The Verizon Building are just rubble?

Hardly.
Click to expand...

The damage to the Verizon building to the west is understandable given the proximity. The damage to Fiterman Hall is not. I don't see how WTC 7 could have caused this since the top eventually rolled to the south. I'd love to hear an explanation for it. Anyway in a CD an attempt is made to minimize damage that doesn't mean it will always succeed.
 
cmatrix said:
You have not in any way shown that the column failures could have been non-simultaneous. Since during free fall all the four corners descended at the same rate (i.e. the building was moving straight down with no roll) the failures in fact had to be simultaneous.
Click to expand...

So the building is only collapsing when the exterior is visibly collapsing, and nothing could have been happening inside leading up to it because we don't see it through the walls. I c wut u did thar.
 
triforcharity said:
When will you be submitting your paper showing NIST wrong to a respectable, properly peer-reviewed journal?

You do that looking at a single side of the building is not going to show the other sides, right?
Click to expand...

When will you be submitting your paper showing NIST right to a respectable, properly peer-reviewed journal?

You do know that looking at a skeletal model showing just the steel allows you to basically see what is happening on the other sides, right?
 
Can a rational person please summarize this thread for me? I got lost somewhere between the OP and the last page.

- What is being withheld by NIST?
- What is the stated reason?
- What are the twoofers doing to get hold of the information (law suits, etc)
- How would this withheld information change NIST's conclusions if released and shown to be faulty?
 
cmatrix said:
The damage to the Verizon building to the west is understandable given the proximity. The damage to Fiterman Hall is not. I don't see how WTC 7 could have caused this since the top eventually rolled to the south. I'd love to hear an explanation for it. Anyway in a CD an attempt is made to minimize damage that doesn't mean it will always succeed.
Click to expand...

Well, I m sorry to hear about your argument from personal incredulity. It really is quite sad.

The proximity to Fitterman Hall and 7WTC and The Verizon Building and 7WTC is roughly the same.

http://wirednewyork.com/wtc/map/

Here are some other pictures for your enjoyment.

911_HighQualityPhotos7784.jpg


911_HighQualityPhotos7782.jpg


Seen these before?

I bet you have.

Care to explain how the building on the left (which is Fitterman Hall BTW) might have been damaged?

Do you need a calculator?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom