Merged New video! Architects and Engineers - Solving the Mystery of Building 7

[Miragememories]

Uh...

That which has been damaged?

Something that is damaged, remains that way until it is repaired. Can we agree on this?

Okay if you do not wish to clarify your question I'll simply say probably yes but possibly no.

Just so you know, I am not being deliberately evasive.

I am attempting to avoid pages of explanation as some clown tries to claim I have fallen into a trap through some semantic error.

Of course you would never behave that way now would you Noah.

MM

 

[NoahFence]

Just so you know, I am not being deliberately evasive.

I'm sorry, but that's a lie. YOU ARE. To me, and anybody else who asks simple questions that require simple answers like "how did the explosives survive impact" or "what's your full theory on 9/11".

NOW:

Okay if you do not wish to clarify your question I'll simply say probably yes but possibly no.

There is no need to clarify the question. Does it or does it not remain damaged until repaired?

Answer - yes. Steel is not organic so it does not have the ability to heal. As soon as the damage is done, it's done. Fire did that. Fire can start another fire 10 miles away - it's pretty amazing stuff really.

 

[Miragememories]

I'm sorry, but that's a lie. YOU ARE. To me, and anybody else who asks simple questions that require simple answers like "how did the explosives survive impact" or "what's your full theory on 9/11".

Look at the join dates Noah.

You are a newbie in spite of your post count.

I have the scars that you can only imagine.

MM

 

[NoahFence]

You know what? I'm going to retract the "lie" part - it's just occured to me that maybe you and your kind don't even realize how drastically you ignore questions that don't appeal to you.

Care to take a crack on how the explosives survived now that we're having a discussion?

 

[Miragememories]

You know what? I'm going to retract the "lie" part - it's just occured to me that maybe you and your kind don't even realize how drastically you ignore questions that don't appeal to you.

Care to take a crack on how the explosives survived now that we're having a discussion?

Maybe after you explain what you mean by "my kind"?

When you are in a minority, you develop a survival instinct.

Being on the majority side, I don't expect you to understand.

You might consider using pm's rather than personalizing your posting.

MM

 

[DGM]

When you are in a minority, you develop a survival instinct.

MM

We know what the "truther" survival instinct is, you ignore evidence you don't like and don't talk about your views in public.

How's that working for your cause?

 

[Miragememories]

We know what the "truther" survival instinct is, you ignore evidence you don't like and don't talk about your views in public.

Hows that working for your cause?

Seriously DGM, you are an old JREFer, do you seriously open your mind when reading a post from someone who supports 9/11 Truth or do you automatically start calculating how best to contradict what you are reading?

I can honestly say that I keep my mind open, only because I detest my beliefs.

MM

 

[Clayton Moore]

Maybe after you explain what you mean by "my kind"?

When you are in a minority, you develop a survival instinct.

Being on the majority side, I don't expect you to understand.

You might consider using pm's rather than personalizing your posting.

MM

Majority?

That's a laugh.

It only seems so because we're behind enemy lines.

 

[DGM]

Seriously DGM, you are an old JREFer, do you seriously open your mind when reading a post from someone who supports 9/11 Truth or do you automatically start calculating how best to contradict what you are reading?

I can honestly say that I keep my mind open, only because I detest my beliefs.

MM

That would depend on if I've heard or read about it before. I take every piece one at a time. When you get old, that's the best way. I do admit, I tend not to watch YouTube videos, I like the old school written word. I may not be the fastest learner on the planet but, the latest news from the "truth" movement was what, 2 years ago?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

To do so would be to address your lack of sympathy for statistics and incredulity about the event.

Your exhausting academic recitations are comparable to a religious fanatic quoting the bible to an atheist.

While I am not in disagreement with the science behind your lecturing, I am in disagreement with how readily you feel your arguments describe what happened to WTC7 on 9/11.

In design and engineering the statistics aren't the product of pure luck and probability, they're the result of years of continued learning and honed experience. We design-build things that people ultimately use, and when mistakes happen it puts people's lives on the line, we can't afford to doubt things on probability alone.

You tend to go on about things not argued as if this makes a case for what happened.

It's the things that you aren't arguing which are the most important, and need to be made clear. You've never asked anything about whether the causes of collapse can be linked to issues of design or current practice, you've skipped it entirely despite acknowledging such issues can influence the results. I'm very thorough about these things for good reason, there's no way around it.

There is no question that how a building collapses under the forces of nature is going to be effected by how it was constructed. But, if a collapse is pre-engineered, it can be designed to collapse in similar fashion as would buildings of totally different construction.

The evidence doesn't care about statistics or probability; It doesn't discriminate conclusions based on spontaneous similarities. It either happened or it didn't. If your case indeed proved that there was a controlled demolition it wouldn't be proven because most collapses you've seen on television were engineered, it'd be because the evidence proved it beyond a reasonable doubt. You give plenty of attention to the latter (red), but almost none to the former (blue).

You related my lengthy academic explanations to a bible thumper talking with an atheist, but it's been more like talking technical with someone who knows very little about the topic or hasn't placed any effort into thinking about the issues relevant to it. A good example of this is the use of precedents showing longer burning fires in buildings that didn't collapse, where the designs and accompanying circumstances were entirely dissimilar to those of the WTC.

A big part of the problem is your willingness to accept a naturally-occurring "right set of circumstances".

In my opinion, the greatest and most realistic probability is that such a "right set of circumstances" could never occur, and that the probability with the most credibility, is that the right set of circumstances were manufactured.

Again, the issue isn't probability, it's the evidence. No steel framed building has ever completely collapsed due to fire. I attribute very little of that to probability; I attribute it to effective established practices in our building codes, good design approaches, and only then a little luck because nothing's perfect. The accompanying statistic is a bonus, but not otherwise informative.

The NIST themselves struggled to find a credible way of denying the obvious. You may argue they didn't spend 7 years on the report, but that would not be completely true. They did release a lengthy preliminary report on WTC7 in 2004, so clearly they had been dealing with the subject since 9/11.

The 2004 report was quite interesting, given that the NIST, in the Final Report altered some of their original critical findings (thermal images and shear studs for example) to favor their final collapse hypothesis.

And that is all it is and ever will be, nothing more than a poorly constructed hypothesis.

As an example;

NIST 2004 WTC7 PRELIMINARY REPORT
"Most of the beams and girders were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs."

"Typically, the shear studs were 0.75 in. in diameter by 5 in. long, spaced 1 ft to 2 ft on center [apart]."

"Studs were not indicated on the design drawings for many of the core girders."

The NIST, in their 2008 WTC 7 FINAL REPORT, incorporating their previous report's original language where ever possible, chose to make a couple of "edits" to the original 2004 text.

"Most of the beams --- ------- were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs."

"Typically, the shear studs were 0.75 in. in diameter by 5 in. long, spaced - -- -- 2 ft on center [apart]."

"Studs were not indicated on the design drawings for ---- -- the core girders."

These are a serious omissions.

All the more so because it clearly establishes that original report m1aterial (2004), was altered without any appendix explanation.

We end up with two critically different translations.

The 2004 original wording undermines the NIST Official Story.

The 2008 edited wording, supports the NIST Official Story.

In effect, we have the NIST saying in 2004, that most of the girders were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs. That typically, the shear studs were spaced 1-2 feet apart. And that many of the 'core' girders did not show shear studs in the design drawings.

In 2008, we have the NIST in effect saying, most of the beams, but not most of the girders,were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs. That typically, the shear studs were spaced 2 feet apart. And that none of the 'core girders' showed shear studs in the design drawings.

Changes between the progress release and the final report are hardly surprising. The progress is by it's very nature incomplete and essentially more like a rough draft. The final report needs to reflect clarifications based on the information they were able to obtain, verify, and complete. Pushing nefarious intentions solely on the basis of differences between a draft release and a final release is - to say the least - not enough to prove anything.

Yes, you are right that "it was the first time in history that planes were used as an instrument of a suicide attack on a large skyscraper", but that is irrelevant to WTC7, as is your digression about the WTC Twin Towers.

It is significant that you pay so little attention to the fire behavior in WTC7, especially since the NIST hypothesis is dependent on that behavior.

Another example of the NIST misrepresentation is shown in this set of images. The thermal display on the left is an accurate representation of the critical floor 12 fire at 2:00 p.m. as seen in the middle photo. The thermal image on the right is what the NIST depicted as an accurate representation for the same time and location.

[qimg]http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/5585/wtc72pmfire9608vy2.png[/qimg]

Does the former (AE911's) take into consideration more than just externally visible flames? Do they disclose this information? I'm not demanding that they provide proprietary information from the original model, but I am curious to know what variables they included information on. For example the NIST report indicates incorporating a combination of estimated fuel loads, enclosure conditions and photographic information from the exterior. I can only make a judgement on the validity based on a complete understanding about the information they accounted for when making the model conform to the photographs. Photography of external visible flames after all doesn't provide all of the information that dictates what we can't view directly.

In an environment where the amount of heat was declining, thermal expansion should also be declining. If the NIST hypothesis was true, column 79 should have failed earlier, in conjunction with the peak fire activity in the designated failure zone. But, according to the NIST's own documentation, despite diminishing fire activity on the critical floor 12, from 4:00 p.m. to 5:20 p.m. critical steel kept expanding to the point of critical instability and buckling.

It's more than simple expansion or contraction. Problem is you're dealing with assemblies that are restrained when this happens, and if it can't expand or contract straight, or if it happens unevenly it causes either the beam to deflect, and/or the connection to snap. If ae911truth or whoever wants to claim it can't have caused the failure of the floors around the column they need to quantify in terms of whether that cased enough stress on the connections to make them break.

Look at this example: http://www.exponent.com/bridge_girder_failure_during_construction/

Of immediate concern was whether the bridge collapsed because of a design deficiency or a construction problem. Either failure mode would have severe implications regarding the existing and future construction, so it was paramount that the cause be determined quickly. The Exponent investigation determined that each girder was restrained by a frictional force at the hanger beam end and with pedestal concrete at the hinge end. When thermal expansion occurred in the girders, the friction force limited the amount of expansion that could occur. This caused one girder to buckle laterally, causing a chain reaction in the other girders.

NIST's conclusions essentially argues a similar scenario to what happened with WTC 7.

Yet you can't even allow a minute bit of objectivity and agree that this is a bit unexpected.

There is such a wealth of material discrediting the NIST's Final Report on the Collapse of WTC7.

The problem I see is that you've simplified - whether intentionally or not - the conditions down to one factor when many of the phenomena you're asking questions about have several.

I could go into Dr. Greening's letter to the NIST, which they ignored, about how the fuel loading figures used by the NIST in their WTC7 fire simulations were totally unrealistic.

I'm only marginally familiar with Greening's comments. But I will say that there are several institutions which have have critiques the report in a similar manner to Greening's objection to the fuel loads. That doesn't necessarily mean NIST's conclusions are wrong, but that as a result of the over-estimations, they overlooked an alternative problem that leads to the same causes. These have more of an effect of code recommendations delivered from the conclusions of the report more than anything else. At the moment, I'm not informed enough on the existing building codes to offer a worthwhile comment on their implications.

 

[DGM]

Posted in wrong thread.

 

[NoahFence]

Maybe after you explain what you mean by "my kind"?

Of course.
"Your kind" = Truthers. People incapable of admitting when they are wrong. People who assign magical, impossible properties to obscure things to prove they're right, and the world's most massive investigation is all wrong. You know. People who run away and hide from simple questions.

When you are in a minority, you develop a survival instinct.

Maybe you should come join us in reality, the water's nice.

I don't expect you to understand.

You're right. I don't understand the truther mentality. Why this insatiable need to be right all the time? WE'RE ON THE INTERNET! We don't matter. If you're wrong, there's no reason to be ashamed or embarrassed. I've been corrected many times on here and elsewhere - and guess what? I've learned from it, from people far smarter than I. Truthers - your kind - need to adopt this policy instead of your continued arrogant ignorance.

 

[Miragememories]

Of course.
"Your kind" = Truthers. People incapable of admitting when they are wrong. People who assign magical, impossible properties to obscure things to prove they're right, and the world's most massive investigation is all wrong. You know. People who run away and hide from simple questions.



Maybe you should come join us in reality, the water's nice.



You're right. I don't understand the truther mentality. Why this insatiable need to be right all the time? WE'RE ON THE INTERNET! We don't matter. If you're wrong, there's no reason to be ashamed or embarrassed. I've been corrected many times on here and elsewhere - and guess what? I've learned from it, from people far smarter than I. Truthers - your kind - need to adopt this policy instead of your continued arrogant ignorance.

You are de-railing the thread Noah.

Suffice to say you are unwise to put the same label on everyone.

The tone of your remarks shows more immaturity and arrogance than the people to whom you are directing them.

I expect this and your posts to be re-directed to Abandon All Hope.

MM

 

[NoahFence]

you asked me a question....


( I answer 'em)

 

[triforcharity]

You are de-railing the thread Noah.

Suffice to say you are unwise to put the same label on everyone.

The tone of your remarks shows more immaturity and arrogance than the people to whom you are directing them.

I expect this and your posts to be re-directed to Abandon All Hope.

MM

And the tone and lack of any kind of response from you, or any of the dozens of other truthers who post on this forum, shows that you and the rest of your religion, are in fact, ignorant of reality and lack any kind of education.

Carry on.

TFT.

 

[000063]

It's boggling that after 10 years people can perpetuate such an obvious lie so eagerly and verbosely. The reward for lying must be tremendous. The penalty will be devastating.

I could just tell that you were going to respond with nothing more factual than "NUH UH!" from the long unbroken post.

Your entire premise that those three huge buildings were SO damaged that they were completely destroyed by their own WEIGHT is a LIE.

Anything you say in support of that basic lie is a lie.

Too bad Grizz never actually claimed that. The claim is that the damage is what lead to the collapse. Damage AND gravity = destruction.

It is also quite frequent to use truths or half-truths in support of a lie. You and other Truthers do it all the time.

To do so would be to address your lack of sympathy for statistics and incredulity about the event.

Your exhausting academic recitations are comparable to a religious fanatic quoting the bible to an atheist.

While I am not in disagreement with the science behind your lecturing, I am in disagreement with how readily you feel your arguments describe what happened to WTC7 on 9/11.

You tend to go on about things not argued as if this makes a case for what happened.

I have no argument with; progressive collapse, being a legal definition in the professional environment.

But just because the definition exists, does not mean it applies to WTC7.

A collapse that progresses. That's pretty much the simplest possible definition. The E. Penthouse collapsed before the rest of the building. That means the collapse progressed, that it was progressive. All of your sophistic ten-cent words and thinly veiled ad hominems can't change that.

You are de-railing the thread Noah.

Suffice to say you are unwise to put the same label on everyone.

He's not putting it on everyone, just you.

The tone of your remarks shows more immaturity and arrogance than the people to whom you are directing them.

I expect this and your posts to be re-directed to Abandon All Hope.

MM

You hypocrite. You've spent more posts on the people you're arguing against than the points you claim to be making, and deliberately avoided a simple question for several posts, then gave a vague-non answer while simultaneously claiming you're not being evasive and, once again, passive-aggressively insulting others.

 

[tfk]

63,

Let me suggest a little expansion on your (or perhaps Grizz's) abbreviated synopsis of the collapse. One that I believe is significant because it considers time constants for certain effects.

You wrote:

Too bad Grizz never actually claimed that. The claim is that the damage is what lead to the collapse. Damage AND gravity = destruction.

Gravity is a constant, unremitting.

The damage (from the planes) happened in the course of a couple of seconds. Prompt secondary failures extended for perhaps 30 seconds or so. (Note that secondary, local failures - collapsed floors, for example - also happened throughout the time left standing, each contributing to added, irreparable damage & weakening of the whole structure.)

The initial damage dramatically changed the load conditions, which put certain components into lower stress (no problem here) and other components into much higher stresses (significant problem here). But most importantly, into different KIND of stresses, bending instead of pure compression (huge problem here).

Omitted from "damage & gravity" is the fires, and the consequence of fires & non-axial loads: creep.

Large fires started immediately, burned for variable extended periods (peak heat outputs lasting about 20 minutes in any given area), and then moved on to other locations as fuel is consumed.

The heating of the steel columns takes a relatively short period of time, measured in seconds for very thin wall, uninsulated components to minutes in very thick wall, uninsulated components, to tens of minutes (up to a couple hours) for insulated components.

Yet the buildings stood for ~1 hour & ~2 hours for WTC 2 & 1 respectively.

The feature that took this amount of time was creep of the structure, the slow, methodical deformation of the steel under the influence of load & heat.

In a typical creep failure, the yielding start slowly at first, then progressively gets faster & faster as the component approaches failure, so that at the ultimate moment, the failure can appear to be instantaneous.

And it is the creep, and its effect - a slow, positive feedback loop of heat -> added stress -> more yielding -> more stress -> faster yielding -> yet higher stresses -> faster yielding -> yet higher stresses -> etc., that matches the time constants of the buildings' 1 hour & 2 hour demises.

I'd suggest a new abbreviation:

Damage, unbalanced loading, fire, creep, creep, & creep, plus gravity led to the collapse.

tom

 

[twinstead]

The extreme minority opinion of the collapse of WTC7, that the collapse could only have occurred due to explosives, is noted and discarded.

 

[000063]

63,

Let me suggest a little expansion on your (or perhaps Grizz's) abbreviated synopsis of the collapse. One that I believe is significant because it considers time constants for certain effects. [...]

Damage, unbalanced loading, fire, creep, creep, & creep, plus gravity led to the collapse.

tom

Sounds legit. I'd like to clarify that I was thinking of the fires under the heading of "damage" in combination with the plane/debris impacts. Problem is, I'm not sure it matters. MM clearly isn't burdened by having to live in reality with the rest of us.

 

[jhunter1163]

The topic is the A&E video, not each other. Also, remain civil and polite. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163