• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

chrismohr said:
You might be interested to know that in my March 6 debate with Richard Gage, I asked him if he thought NIST's safety recommendations (which were quickly taken up by the international building community in the form of new guidleines and regulations) were a waste of money. He said yes, they were a waste of money. "That really scares me," I said. "I think my safety and the safety of everyone in this room is not a waste of money."
Click to expand...

What garbage. It never happened before and never happened since. Yet it happened 3 freaking times in 1/4 of a day. The eye rolling by the IBC was likely staggering.
 
Clayton Moore said:
What garbage. It never happened before and never happened since. Yet it happened 3 freaking times in 1/4 of a day. The eye rolling by the IBC was likely staggering.
Click to expand...

What never happened? A massive aircraft full of fuel slamming into the side of a 110 story building? I agree. Or is it a 47 story building being damaged beyond repair by pieces of the aforementioned 110 story building as it collasped, setting fires that were fought for a grand total of zero minutes, by zero firefighters?

Which is it?

Stop it, Clayton. You know damn well what really happened. If you're just being contrary for the sake of doing so, that's fine. Just admit it for crying out loud.
 
Clayton Moore said:
What garbage. It never happened before and never happened since. Yet it happened 3 freaking times in 1/4 of a day. The eye rolling by the IBC was likely staggering.
Click to expand...
Yeah, there haven't been any other buildings since that had the combination of:

- being built like the WTC
- hit by large projectiles
- had their active fireproofing crippled
- had passive fireproofing compromised
- had multi-story fires ignited simultaneously
- that burned 80 stories in the air beyond fire fighter's reach
- had fires that were allowed to burn totally unfought for eight hours

etc. etc.

I'll take that rarity as a sign that building codes are relatively effective; that it takes a combination like that to cause a disaster, rather than a sign of luck or probability.
 
Last edited:
Clayton Moore said:
What garbage. It never happened before and never happened since. Yet it happened 3 freaking times in 1/4 of a day. The eye rolling by the IBC was likely staggering.
Click to expand...

2 of the largest buildings on Earth, and one big skyscraper, were all demolished with CD in one day? Never happened before, and never happened since.

That means it didn't happen at all, right Clayton?

What garbage indeed, huh? Your arguments are incredibly stupid.
 
Last edited:
Seymour Butz said:
I find it most interesting that MM will make note of these changes, and then offer zero evidence that IF a certain number of studs were actually used, then thermal expansion couldn't have taken place.

But every issue is the same with these guys. They make an argument about x, y ,z, being suspicious in the NIST report. But that's as far as it goes. No reason is ever put forth as to just WHY there suspicions have merit, and aren't just them "listening to their ear crickets".

Personally, I'd listen IF their argument went something like this:

1- inclusion of studs would have helped resist thermal expansion by x amount

2- a more accurate fire simulation would have resulted in lower gas temps.

3- the beam, under these corrected conditions, would have had less thermal expansion, and the girder to col 79 connection wouldn't have failed.

4- here are my maths..........

Never seen it though.
Click to expand...


Using an accurate computer model of WTC 7 I guarantee that a simulation that suddenly completely removed col 79 would not result in its destruction as happened on 9/11.
 
NoahFence said:
Buildings have already been built using info from the NIST report. One of these buildings burned and did not collapse. This is proof that the information from the NIST report was put into practice and WORKED.

End of discussion.

(well, for rational people at least)
Click to expand...

Nah, ya can't use that argument. Too many buildings that did not have those features have also burned and not collapsed.

None of the recommendations would prevent a building hit by a fast moving large jet from collapsing. They've admitted that they can't do that. The recommendations are aimed at hardening and expanding thte egress paths so that people will have a better chance of getting out.

The recommendations associated with wtc7 suggest that structural engineers look very carefully at the implications of thermal expansion on long beams & girders. And also begin to look harder at mechanisms of progressive collapse. Exactly like the code revisions in England after Ronin Point collapse.

Fortunately, Noah, there are a boatload of compelling arguments on your (our) side. You don't need the weak ones.


Tom
 
Last edited:
Clayton Moore said:
Using an accurate computer model of WTC 7 I guarantee that a simulation that suddenly completely removed col 79 would not result in its destruction as happened on 9/11.
Click to expand...

Well go on then get Gage to actually get one put together and show that, he wont of course.
 
Miragememories said:
Are you suggesting that those thousands of ASCE members have read the NIST WTC reports?

And that each and every one are up to date on the subject of 9/11 and have gone on the public record to say so, just like the 1600+ architects and engineers who publicly signed the AE911Truth petition?

MM
Click to expand...

I strongly suspect that the vast majority have followed along with the professional discussions (ignoring Yewtube kiddies), out of professional responsibility & curiosity.

I strongly suspect that a much smaller percent have used the NIST reports exactly as this type of publication is intended, and has been used for decades, successfully & constantly, by professionals who have limited time: they read the intro & conclusions carefully, see if the conclusions make sense, check further into any specifics (which are explained in the report in exacting detail) that may seem puzzling or questionable to them, note the reputations of the authors, watch how the rest of the professional community reacts to the reports, and make the prudent, provisional conclusions that good judgment dictates.

You'll note that the foundation of this epistemology is skepticism, but trust in the cumulative efforts of their professional compatriots. That there will be enough experts in enough detail areas to expose within the professional community any unjustified conclusions.

You'll also note the abject lack of any role in this process for government flunkies, the opinions of journalists, Hollywood actors, the public, amateurs, or interwebz trolls.

The results?
The professional community has long since rendered it's verdict.

You lose.

Better luck next time. :cool:

Tk
 
Last edited:
Clayton Moore said:
What garbage. It never happened before and never happened since. Yet it happened 3 freaking times in 1/4 of a day. The eye rolling by the IBC was likely staggering.
Click to expand...

Hey Clayton,

A progressive collapse of high rise, prefab concrete slabs from a kitchen gas explosion had never happened before Ronan Point.

So which is it?

It did not happen?
Or inside job...?

Me's curious.


Tk

PS you never said what you do for a living. I'm curious about that, too.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Using an accurate computer model of WTC 7 I guarantee that a simulation that suddenly completely removed col 79 would not result in its destruction as happened on 9/11.
Click to expand...

What is your background and experience that allows you to make this guarantee, btw?

Tk

PS. As a matter of fact, my wild ass unsupported guess is that you are right about this.

Unfortunately for your ridiculous argument, you scenario bears zero resemblance to what NIST said happened.

PPS. I can prove, beyond doubt, that your argument is ridiculous.

C'mon, ask me how.
 
Miragememories said:
I believe the NIST said they believed their computer models to be a fair and accurate representation of reality.
MM
Click to expand...

You believe wrong, again:rolleyes:. They make it quite clear that they have insufficient data to make any such claim. They represent one possible scenario that would result in the observed failure identifying a failure mechanism that future builders should avoid.

Exactly matching the actual failure in every minute detail would be impossible and pointless.
 
Miragememories said:
So to believe that "the NIST believed their computer models to be a fair and accurate representation of reality" is a false belief?

That in essence, the NIST believed their computer models were an unfair and inaccurate representation of reality?

Yes, I can accept that interpretation.

MM
Click to expand...

NIST has never stated their their computer models were accurate......free from error or defect; precise; exact.

Only troofers demand such ridiculous results.
 
Clayton Moore said:
What garbage. It never happened before and never happened since. Yet it happened 3 freaking times in 1/4 of a day. The eye rolling by the IBC was likely staggering.
Click to expand...

a few years ago, a baby soon to be named Clayton Moore was born. You are absolutely unique (unless you have an identical twin), you being born had never ever happened before and the odds of you being you are astronomically high, far far greater than the odds of what happened on 911,, yet here you are..........so is it garbage to say you exist?
 
sheeplesnshills said:
You believe wrong, again:rolleyes:. They make it quite clear that they have insufficient data to make any such claim. They represent one possible scenario that would result in the observed failure identifying a failure mechanism that future builders should avoid.

Exactly matching the actual failure in every minute detail would be impossible and pointless.
Click to expand...

A failure is a failure is a failure.

The leading up to specific failure means nothing. It's the possibility, or impossibility in the case of 9/11, of that specific failure causing essentially instantaneous multidirectional failures throughout the building.
 
Animal said:
NIST has never stated their their computer models were accurate......free from error or defect; precise; exact.

Only troofers demand such ridiculous results.
Click to expand...

NIST's computer model code isn't even available to the public. Kinda like Bush impeding an investigation for a couple of years. Go figure.
 
Clayton Moore said:
NIST's computer model code isn't even available to the public.
Click to expand...

Actually they used a commercial finite-element analysis system that is extremely available to the public if you can afford it. Most can't. It's tens of thousands of dollars per seat. But that's the grade of tools used in commercial engineering.
 
Clayton Moore said:
The leading up to specific failure means nothing. It's the possibility, or impossibility in the case of 9/11, of that specific failure causing essentially instantaneous multidirectional failures throughout the building.
Click to expand...
Oh, you are right about one thing. Thermal creep and a failure at one particular point could not possibly cause near-instantaneous collapse.

It took about 30-40 seconds, to judge by the seismic record.

We only got to see about twenty seconds of it from the outside.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom