WTC7 and the NIST free fall failure

[achimspok]

I'm a general contractor and yes I know several developers and engineers that "looked into it".

What exactly are your qualifications that would make your "honest opinion" more then just a wild guess.

There it is. I'm just a little engineer who can distinguish between convex and concave when he see it.
Let's say, a perimeter collapse that pulled the outriggers down smells like convex roof deformation. A core collapse that pulled the perimeter down smells like core collapse. What says your expertise?

 

[achimspok]

The core was the last thing standing, but you are saying that it fell first too? Can you elaborate on this?

On edit - I almost put strikethrough on the above post because I thought I misunderstood what might have been an on-topic reference to WTC7. But he's saying 98 (I'm assuming 98th floor), so I guess I'll leave it.

Right, it's off topic but what should I do? Nobody really wants to talk about the topic.
Your off topic question: The highest column of the spire was 501 and as high as the MER floor 75. Furthermore all columns of the south half of the core were completely gone.

 

[achimspok]

Then how do you explain 79 below the E Penthouse?

Is it a question or did you just miss the little trip to WTC1?

 

[carlitos]

Your off topic question: The highest column of the spire was 501 and as high as the MER floor 75. Furthermore all columns of the south half of the core were completely gone.

Reading your comment, may I infer that you propose that something knocked out the core columns at around the 98th floor of WTC1? Why would someone want to fail a column on the 98th floor of a building that has been/will be hit by a plane at around the 94-97th floors? Isn't it more logical that heat travelled up from the fire to do the damage? If someone wanted to drop a building, they would damage it somewhere down low. Also, NIST has shown photos which demonstrate that column 136 (from 98th floor) shows signs of being heated to ~625 degrees C, but no cutting or thermite residue.

 

[The Platypus]

You can already see it. Go to post one.

Why do you want me to do it for you, scared of real scrutiny from real experts huh...

Besides, why would i do it when i don't believe a word you say?

 

[ozeco41]

achimspok he has a point; if you think CD felled the building then you should be looking for evidence of that, otherwise this thread should be in Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology subforum.

What you appear to be doing is a God of the Gaps argument. If it doesn't work for creationists, why should it work for you?

Thanks for the support twinstead.

My post was actually a preliminary to lay the groundwork for what could follow if I choose to pursue the discussion. The reality that achimspok does not address is that there are two big lots of evidence standing between the pseudo zero base he chooses to argue from and any finding as to why WTC7 collapsed. Those two lots of evidence can broadly be described as "technical" and "security/logistic". He is only addressing the technical and he limits it to the technical by a distorted misuse of the scientific method.

No matter what achimspok et al find by the micro examination of technical detail it will not alter at all the evidence in the domain of what I call 'security/logistic' issues. Briefly put there is no way that 'human assistance' could have been invoked without getting caught. In fact that definition is probably too narrow - add 'why do it anyway'.

So, if the implicit goal is prove 'human assistance' then why bother with all the technical stuff - there is a far bigger barrier awaiting no matter what they 'prove' in the technical domain.

As I have said on several previous occasions I have no objection to a technical discussion. I am not likely to take part if that is the goal. I have no significant problem if the goal is 'prove NIST wrong'. Others may not agree with me on the latter and I may buy into that one if the illogic gets too ridiculous.

But achimspok persists in representing the technical detail which is only part of the whole picture as if it was the whole picture. A false claim which I called him for in my previous post. A false claim that he continues to put forward multiple times in his response. Whether he genuinely doesn't comprehend or is being deliberately mendacious matters not.

So much for this 'progress report'. I will consider a reply to achimspok's post later today (UTC+11 here).

 

[achimspok]

Reading your comment, may I infer that you propose that something knocked out the core columns at around the 98th floor of WTC1? Why would someone want to fail a column on the 98th floor of a building that has been/will be hit by a plane at around the 94-97th floors? Isn't it more logical that heat travelled up from the fire to do the damage? If someone wanted to drop a building, they would damage it somewhere down low. Also, NIST has shown photos which demonstrate that column 136 (from 98th floor) shows signs of being heated to ~625 degrees C, but no cutting or thermite residue.

I think you either mean floor 98 and column 210 or 143 or you mean floor 92 and column 236. These are all locations that reached more than 250°C (besides the lack of samples). According to NIST the microstructures "show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600°C for any sigificant time."

 

[alienentity]

I thought this thread was about WTC 7.

What about column 79 and the E Penthouse? Or have you abandoned any pretense of offering an engineering explanation for the WTC 7 collapse?

 

[femr2]

My post was actually a preliminary to lay the groundwork for what could follow if I choose to pursue the discussion.

You cannot turn every single thread you choose to post in into your pet subject...*demolition or not*, with the same speech lurking in the background.

That's spamming and trolling, technically.

The thread has a limited scope. Please remain within that scope.

 

[beachnut]

I think you either mean floor 98 and column 210 or 143 or you mean floor 92 and column 236. These are all locations that reached more than 250°C (besides the lack of samples). According to NIST the microstructures "show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600°C for any sigificant time."

You broke 911 wide open! Better publish your findings, building can't collapse because steel never fails in fire!

Never-mind, steel does fail in fire. But you never will publish much more than nonsense on 911. Free fall failure? I timed the collapse, it took over 15 seconds, this twice as slow as free fall. What is your conclusion? Do you have a conclusion? Do you deny fire caused the collapse of WTC7?

"Publish or perish"

 

[achimspok]

Why do you want me to do it for you, scared of real scrutiny from real experts huh...

Besides, why would i do it when i don't believe a word you say?

Interesting position. Let's talk about - I don't know what - because I wouldn't read the WHAT because I don't trust you anyway BUT I have an opinion. ...a little bit duckfaced may be but... who should prohibit me farting in a public place!

Feel free at the EDUCATIONAL FORUM! Deep insight! Always welcome!
May I post some Sponge Bob pictures for you? It's not that boring.

 

[achimspok]

Thanks for the support twinstead.

My post was actually a preliminary to lay the groundwork for what could follow if I choose to pursue the discussion. The reality that achimspok does not address is that there are two big lots of evidence standing between the pseudo zero base he chooses to argue from and any finding as to why WTC7 collapsed. Those two lots of evidence can broadly be described as "technical" and "security/logistic". He is only addressing the technical and he limits it to the technical by a distorted misuse of the scientific method.

No matter what achimspok et al find by the micro examination of technical detail it will not alter at all the evidence in the domain of what I call 'security/logistic' issues. Briefly put there is no way that 'human assistance' could have been invoked without getting caught. In fact that definition is probably too narrow - add 'why do it anyway'.

So, if the implicit goal is prove 'human assistance' then why bother with all the technical stuff - there is a far bigger barrier awaiting no matter what they 'prove' in the technical domain.

As I have said on several previous occasions I have no objection to a technical discussion. I am not likely to take part if that is the goal. I have no significant problem if the goal is 'prove NIST wrong'. Others may not agree with me on the latter and I may buy into that one if the illogic gets too ridiculous.

But achimspok persists in representing the technical detail which is only part of the whole picture as if it was the whole picture. A false claim which I called him for in my previous post. A false claim that he continues to put forward multiple times in his response. Whether he genuinely doesn't comprehend or is being deliberately mendacious matters not.

So much for this 'progress report'. I will consider a reply to achimspok's post later today (UTC+11 here).

Ignorant! This thread had 1800 views in 24 hours. Would you say it's the wrong place? It isn't even if it hurts in your a$$.
Do you have anything to say referred to the topic?

 

[carlitos]

I think you either mean floor 98 and column 210 or 143 or you mean floor 92 and column 236. These are all locations that reached more than 250°C (besides the lack of samples). According to NIST the microstructures "show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600°C for any sigificant time."

....and here you focus on the insignificant details, and quotemine NIST, while ignoring the much larger issues I raised in my post. Got it.

ETA - ignored portion:

Reading your comment, may I infer that you propose that something knocked out the core columns at around the 98th floor of WTC1? Why would someone want to fail a column on the 98th floor of a building that has been/will be hit by a plane at around the 94-97th floors? Isn't it more logical that heat travelled up from the fire to do the damage? If someone wanted to drop a building, they would damage it somewhere down low.

 

[achimspok]

You broke 911 wide open!

What a fu**, Beachnut, I'm so sorry!

Better publish your findings, building can't collapse because steel never fails in fire!

Oh, these are not my findings. I wrote about FREE FALL.

But thanks for the picture. Do you have some "Before and Then" for it? I mean we should take wood for the core columns. What do you think?

Never-mind, steel does fail in fire.

Especially since the BBC has shown that JetA1 burns at 2010°. Farenheit? Celsius? Kelvin? Who knows.

But you never will publish much more than nonsense on 911. Free fall failure? I timed the collapse, it took over 15 seconds, this twice as slow as free fall. What is your conclusion? Do you have a conclusion? Do you deny fire caused the collapse of WTC7?

You timed the collapse? It took over 15 seconds? You probably missed the fires. That collapse took more than 7 hours.

"Publish or perish"

..and a little bit of good old fascism.

 

[achimspok]

Btw, beachnut, before we march a little bit around the house to watch out for some ******* with an own opinion...

HOW FAST WENT YOUR BUILDING DOWN?...from start to end. May I see your right wing pilots measurement?

Edited for Rule 10. Do not try to circumvent the auto-censor; just let it do its job.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

 

[beachnut]

... You timed the collapse? It took over 15 seconds? You probably missed the fires. That collapse took more than 7 hours.

It does not take much heat for steel to fail, this is why we insulate it and fight fires when we can. Bringing up what the BBC said is off topic tripe, the jet fuel fires started the office fires which burned and caused the collapse due to the fact insulation used to protect the steel was ripped off in the 1300 and 2093 pounds of TNT kinetic energy impacts of heavy jets.

There goes your free-fall paper. 7 hours pretty much rules out free-fall, check with a physics teacher.

BTW, over 15 seconds means 7 hours is covered. Got math?

The 7 hours of fire make CD impossible, and thermite a delusional lie. What is the purpose of your massive OP? What it the conclusion? The OP rules out CD and thermite with little additional research and evidence needed. What is your goal?

Btw, beachnut, before we march a little bit around the house to watch out for some --------- with an own opinion...

HOW FAST WENT YOUR BUILDING DOWN?...from start to end. May I see your right wing pilots measurement?

Oh? No goal. I found your post offensive, and now your true colors are showing. Real researchers publish their claims, fake researchers waste time exposing their ignorance and biases. Maybe some neoNAZIs will join your failed attempt at whatever your goal is. What is your goal? Conclusion? Anything? Date you will publish the OP massive research?

 

[carlitos]

I am already regretting joining this conversation, but achimspok, your BBC screengrab appears to say "2010" not "2100" - I'm sure you are criticizing their lack of accuracy, so I thought I'd point it out.

Also, when you joined and agreed to the rules, rule 10 was part of them.

10. You will not swear in your posts. This includes using swear words in a disguised form, for example, by replacing certain letters in the word with another letter, character, or image.E6

 

[The Platypus]

Interesting position. Let's talk about - I don't know what - because I wouldn't read the WHAT because I don't trust you anyway BUT I have an opinion. ...a little bit duckfaced may be but... who should prohibit me farting in a public place!

Feel free at the EDUCATIONAL FORUM! Deep insight! Always welcome!
May I post some Sponge Bob pictures for you? It's not that boring.

What's so interesting about my position, which was that i don't believe you and won't present your case for you to NIST? Why are you throwing another tantrum over that?

I didn't ask you to read anything or trust me about anything. I'm just wondering why you don't really trust yourself and what your claiming enough to put it to the test by facing off with those you claim are so wrong.

Go give some sponge bob pix and use that juvenile arrogant act with NIST and their experts... That helps your credibility, I'm sure that'll work well for you... You talk alot of talk, but sure are afraid to walk the walk, which is common for people that are full of it...

 

[achimspok]

It does not take much heat for steel to fail, this is why we insulate it and fight fires when we can. Bringing up what the BBC said is off topic tripe, the jet fuel fires started the office fires which burned and caused the collapse due to the fact insulation used to protect the steel was ripped off in the 1300 and 2093 pounds of TNT kinetic energy impacts of heavy jets.

There goes your free-fall paper. 7 hours pretty much rules out free-fall, check with a physics teacher.

BTW, over 15 seconds means 7 hours is covered. Got math?

The 7 hours of fire make CD impossible, and thermite a delusional lie. What is the purpose of your massive OP? What it the conclusion? The OP rules out CD and thermite with little additional research and evidence needed. What is your goal?

Oh? No goal. I found your post offensive, and now your true colors are showing. Real researchers publish their claims, fake researchers waste time exposing their ignorance and biases. Maybe some neoNAZIs will join your failed attempt at whatever your goal is. What is your goal? Conclusion? Anything? Date you will publish the OP massive research?

Where is your measurement? My measurement is on page one.
It shows "no motion"->"motion"
Btw, Free Fall is covered in the 7h. Got math!

 

[achimspok]

I am already regretting joining this conversation, but achimspok, your BBC screengrab appears to say "2010" not "2100" - I'm sure you are criticizing their lack of accuracy, so I thought I'd point it out.

Also, when you joined and agreed to the rules, rule 10 was part of them.

2010° is already corrected.

What do you think about "Publish or perish"?