WTC7 and the girder walk-off between column 79 and 44

[RedIbis]

My question is: How sensitive is the model to such changes in values - does it really make a difference if the girder needed to walk 5.5 or 6 inches? There is considerably uncertainty about input values, and about intermediary values (like for how long which temperatures were reached). NIST tried to "tweak" the input values such that the result resembles observations rather well without leaving a comfort zone of reasonable assumptions. That is how you work such models. Many truthers object already to this approach.

Will you find more mistakes if you keep looking? Yes, without a doubt. Some of the mistakes will, if corrected, make the collapse more likely, some less likely. Question is how sensitive the model is to such mistakes.


What NIST modeled a building that is very similar to what WTC7 really was, and also fires that were very similar to the observed fires. If the physics and engineering incorporated into the software works correct, they showed that a building very similar to WTC7 can collapse if subjected to fires very similar to the fires of 9/11, in a fashion that looks very similar to the real collapse.

So does it matter much if they are not exact in every detail? Is it reasonable to expect that they are perfectly correct in every detail?

You've admitted in other posts that WTC 7 is not something you have studied in detail, so it's understandable that you are unaware of the differences in the fires in WTC 7 and how NIST simulated them.

Secondly, in this discussion of the girder walk-off I have a rather stupid question: what physical evidence exists to support this walk-off hypothesis? Too often these assertions are taken on faith without the slightest physical evidence for support. If it exists, please point me to it.

Finally, I'd like to ask, as I assumed, why this is a stupid question? Why is it just another stupid twoofie JAQ when physical evidence is requested to support an official explanation?

 

[Gamolon]

My question is: How sensitive is the model to such changes in values - does it really make a difference if the girder needed to walk 5.5 or 6 inches?

Oystein,

I'm playing devil's advocate here.

The problem is that NIST gave very definitive values in their explanation as to why the girder walked off it's seat. If there was any degree of tolerance for any of these values, why wasn't it noted?

They give 600C, 5.5" of movement and an 11 in. seat plate.

There is no mention of anything else being involved in their explanation that I can see (unless I am missing it), which caused the girder to move off it's seat other than the floor beams thermally expanding to push it off.

So now you have an incorrect plate callout based on the drawings. This adds another 1/2" to the movement bringing it up to 6". Now the temperature (not sure how much) has to increase to accommodate the extra half inch to be pushed.

That's three elements in a very definitive explanation that has to be corrected/addressed.

 

[cjnewson88]

Once the expanding floor beams had pushed the girder as far as it could go laterally (when it came to rest against the inside of the column flange), the floor beams could no longer extend in length laterally from heating. So what does metal do when it's expanding and its got no where to go? It buckles.

By my understanding the size of the seat plate is irrelevant, as the report states it got pushed laterally until the girder came to rest against the inside of the column flange, and then the floor beams buckled and rocked the girder off.

At least, this is what it says for 3d diagrams provided. NIST goes over 3 different scenarios to test their hypothesis. I would think they would include the 3d diagrams for their 'most likely' one. I'm too busy to see which one they went with, someone want to check and let us know?

 

[Gamolon]

Once the expanding floor beams had pushed the girder as far as it could go laterally (when it came to rest against the inside of the column flange), the floor beams could no longer extend in length laterally from heating. So what does metal do when it's expanding and its got no where to go? It buckles.

On column 79, the girder was not between the column flanges. There were 26" wide, 2" thick plates welded to both flange ends on either side. Those plates protruded past the face of the column flanges by 1.8".

By my understanding the size of the seat plate is irrelevant, as the report states it got pushed laterally until the girder came to rest against the inside of the column flange, and then the floor beams buckled and rocked the girder off.

Again, the girder was not between the column flanges. Unless you are speaking of column 44.

At least, this is what it says for 3d diagrams provided. NIST goes over 3 different scenarios to test their hypothesis. I would think they would include the 3d diagrams for their 'most likely' one. I'm too busy to see which one they went with, someone want to check and let us know?

That's what I'd like to know also. Was there any other elements of the girder walk-off other than being pushed 5.5" from thermal expansion of floor beams.

 

[MarkLindeman]

NIST has the girder failing twice - in opposite directions. This report is not credible.

Nonsense. And I already explained why it is nonsense. Charitably, it's rather dim to insist on the characterization that "NIST has" this.

ETA: Your request for page numbers is odd as well, since all I had to do was actually read in context the passages you had quoted.

 

[MarkLindeman]

Secondly, in this discussion of the girder walk-off I have a rather stupid question: what physical evidence exists to support this walk-off hypothesis? Too often these assertions are taken on faith without the slightest physical evidence for support. If it exists, please point me to it.

Finally, I'd like to ask, as I assumed, why this is a stupid question? Why is it just another stupid twoofie JAQ when physical evidence is requested to support an official explanation?

This question may sound rhetorical, but I actually mean it: are you willing to consider the hypothesis that the NIST researchers set out to try to reconstruct the probable collapse sequence, much as they say they did?

Construing the NIST report as "an official explanation" may feel edgy, but I don't see how it is analytically helpful.

If you want to know how the NIST researchers arrived at their conclusions, that is of course what the report is about. Presumably you don't need anyone at JREF to direct you to the report. I see no reason to take on faith your assertion that "too often these assertions are taken on faith."

If you wonder whether the researchers have "physical evidence" for their conclusions with respect to the girder, that would depend in part on what you mean by the term. Would you say that there is "physical evidence" that the Challenger was destroyed because of an O-ring failure? That's the "official explanation," right? I daresay there is also good reason to believe it, but if you insist on seeing the failed O-ring, then obviously we have a problem.

If this were a serious discussion, you might present alternative hypotheses -- which might be plausible -- informed in part by NIST's discussion, and the analysis could proceed without all this handwaving about faith, official stories, twoofies, and whatnot.

 

[Gamolon]

question: what physical evidence exists to support this walk-off hypothesis? Too often these assertions are taken on faith without the slightest physical evidence for support. If it exists, please point me to it.

Why would the presence of physical evidence matter? All that would be said by the truther side would be that it was faked/fabricated/planted.

It's a constant denial. Nothing will EVER satisfy a conspiracy believer as they will always denounce the presented evidence as faked/fabricated/planted.

Just look around. The planes were holograms. The plane parts were planted. NIST lied in their report. Blah, blah, blah.

Even an "independent" investigation, were it to find the official story true, would be labeled a farce for some reason or another. If you believe the government capable of planning and executing a conspiracy of the magnitude of 9/11, what would assure you (or anyone) that an independent investigation would not be infiltrated or influenced by the all-powerful government in order to support the official story?

As far as physical evidence, give me an example? Would you like to see the girder from floor 13 that was between columns 79 and 44? What characteristics would you need to see that would prove the girder walked of the seat due to thermal expansion? Would you need to see the floor beams stretched 5.5" due to thermal expansion from floor 13? If so, how could you be 100% sure that those physical specimens weren't fabricated (faked) by the government? Would you need to physically tough the girder/beams or would a photo suffice? How would you know the photos weren't faked?

The truth movement will NEVER be satisfied until the government is proved to be behind the 9/11 attacks no matter WHAT evidence is provided to the contrary and will always find excuses to damn any evidence provided that supports the government's official story.

 

[Gamolon]

You've admitted in other posts that WTC 7 is not something you have studied in detail, so it's understandable that you are unaware of the differences in the fires in WTC 7 and how NIST simulated them.

Secondly, in this discussion of the girder walk-off I have a rather stupid question: what physical evidence exists to support this walk-off hypothesis? Too often these assertions are taken on faith without the slightest physical evidence for support. If it exists, please point me to it.

Finally, I'd like to ask, as I assumed, why this is a stupid question? Why is it just another stupid twoofie JAQ when physical evidence is requested to support an official explanation?

Another question Red.

Has anyone ever come up with a step by step hypothesis/analysis showing how explosives/thermite would have been used to bring down WTC7 complete with calculations and computer models? One that agrees with all the video, eyewitness accounts, and photos?

All this supposed proof AGAINST the government, yet nobody has the balls to put together a report comparable to the NIST report to show what REALLY happened. All the architects, engineers, professors and arm-chair-experts, etc. with all their data/proof, yet all they can do is spin around in a disjointed mass and and play the "my theory right and your theory is wrong" game between themselves.

 

[plague311]

Another question Red.

Has anyone ever come up with a step by step hypothesis/analysis showing how explosives/thermite would have been used to bring down WTC7 complete with calculations and computer models? One that agrees with all the video, eyewitness accounts, and photos?
All this supposed proof AGAINST the government, yet nobody has the balls to put together a report comparable to the NIST report to show what REALLY happened. All the architects, engineers, professors and arm-chair-experts, etc. with all their data/proof, yet all they can do is spin around in a disjointed mass and and play the "my theory right and your theory is wrong" game between themselves.

That is probably the most solid point I've seen in awhile. Maybe it's because I am slightly newbish to the boards, but I would pay money to get that done. A lot of studies by the government have been done, and the only real one I can think of the twoofer side is the is the Bentham paper.

 

[RedIbis]

Why would the presence of physical evidence matter?

I don't think much more even needs to be said.

 

[MarkLindeman]

I don't think much more even needs to be said.

If you're conceding Gamolon's point, absolutely not. Otherwise, you might start by explaining why you quoted Gamolon out of context.

 

[Gamolon]

I don't think much more even needs to be said.

Why didn't you quote the rest of what I said Red? How dishonest of you...

Why would the presence of physical evidence matter? All that would be said by the truther side would be that it was faked/fabricated/planted.

Makes a difference as to what the meaning of the quote was when posted with the rest of it don't you think?

 

[Gamolon]

If you're conceding Gamolon's point, absolutely not. Otherwise, you might start by explaining why you quoted Gamolon out of context.

It's ridiculous isn't it?

 

[NoahFence]

You mean more Red dishonesty?

For shame! Not possible.

 

[dc1971]

Finally, I'd like to ask, as I assumed, why this is a stupid question? Why is it just another stupid twoofie JAQ when physical evidence is requested to support an official explanation?

Because you're not an expert.

 

[RedIbis]

Why didn't you quote the rest of what I said Red? How dishonest of you...



Makes a difference as to what the meaning of the quote was when posted with the rest of it don't you think?

No it doesn't. It's just a rationalization as to why there is no physical evidence to justify your belief in NIST's hypotheses. I honestly think you don't believe physical evidence makes any difference. Much like I honestly think most of the so-called "debunkers" don't believe physical evidence makes much difference.

Skepticism isn't conditional. Physical evidence is always key.

So I'll ask again to see if I get any honest answers. What physical evidence has NIST provided that supports this girder walk-off hypothesis?

 

[RedIbis]

Because you're not an expert.

You don't have to be an expert to know that novel hypotheses require physical evidence.

 

[NoahFence]

You don't have to be an expert to know that novel hypotheses require physical evidence.

Bottom line this for us.

NIST was wrong about the walk-off.

How does 9/11 change?

 

[000063]

No it doesn't. It's just a rationalization as to why there is no physical evidence to justify your belief in NIST's hypotheses. I honestly think you don't believe physical evidence makes any difference. Much like I honestly think most of the so-called "debunkers" don't believe physical evidence makes much difference.

Wrong. He said that any physical evidence contradicting Truther's claims will be ignored or rationalized, as is made clear with context, which you omitted. Which means either you fail at reading comprehension, or you were deliberately quote-mining.

But please, keep making statements about the beliefs and honesty of complete strangers.

Skepticism isn't conditional. Physical evidence is always key.

Wrong. Sometimes you just have records and eyewitness testimony.

So I'll ask again to see if I get any honest answers. What physical evidence has NIST provided that supports this girder walk-off hypothesis?

You don't get to question others' honesty when you have provided no evidence, physical or otherwise, that Larry S. "made out like a bandit", and studiously ignore the matter each time it is bought up.

...

As far as physical evidence, give me an example? Would you like to see the girder from floor 13 that was between columns 79 and 44? What characteristics would you need to see that would prove the girder walked of the seat due to thermal expansion? Would you need to see the floor beams stretched 5.5" due to thermal expansion from floor 13? If so, how could you be 100% sure that those physical specimens weren't fabricated (faked) by the government? Would you need to physically tough the girder/beams or would a photo suffice? How would you know the photos weren't faked? ...

See? He's offering physical evidence, and trying to determine what you would accept, even after saying Truthers rationalize away everything. And you have been focusing on him rather than the evidence he said he had. I guess you proved his point.

 

[LSSBB]

No it doesn't. It's just a rationalization as to why there is no physical evidence to justify your belief in NIST's hypotheses. I honestly think you don't believe physical evidence makes any difference. Much like I honestly think most of the so-called "debunkers" don't believe physical evidence makes much difference.

Skepticism isn't conditional. Physical evidence is always key.

So I'll ask again to see if I get any honest answers. What physical evidence has NIST provided that supports this girder walk-off hypothesis?

Yes, Physical evidence is key. NIST has collapsed building material and fire damage. They showed how a fire damaged building can collapse.

What Physical evidence of an alternative hypothesis is there? I still see none.