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

[carlitos]

Provide NIST your feedback and request a response.

Great suggestion.

 

[cjnewson88]

I love it when truthers are so certain of something something must, must not or is impossible to happen. Ya know, it really makes me giggle when they say things like 'It's impossible for aircraft to fly like that', 'it's impossible for a building to fall like that'.

Truthers instantly look like idiots when they say it; because guess what truthers..

because Clearly it isn't! That's the way it happened.

Really it's the ultimate debunking. You're wrong because what happened proved you wrong.

 

[RedIbis]

see my post above

Ok. We agree. Documentary evidence is not physical evidence.

Untrue, there is a century of docuemented testing of the behaviour of steel in fires including physical evidence obtained in other structural fires.

And yet none of it reports the two novel phenomena that NIST purports.
So how does the documentary evidence even support NIST's hypotheses?

That individual components of WTC cannot be positively identified remains the most compelling reason why none of the members involved in the NIST scenario were used.

It's not compelling, it's farcical. You take it as a matter of faith that this is even true, and don't question why the steel was removed so quickly.

In fact it is your contention that physical evidence is required to put forth a scenario of how the structure fell, and yet the 911 conspiracy has none and yet managed to claim a controlled demolition. How is that possible if physical evidence is required to positively state such a conclusion?

A fair point and a good question. Perhaps, you'll see what is fair in my response. Alternative explanations for the collapses are at least equally justifiable because NIST's WTC 7 report is wholly without physical evidence. If you want to rely on documentary evidence, unfortunately, there's far greater precedence for, and similarity to, controlled demolition than the unprecedented scenario NIST puts forth.

Actually, the 911 conspiracy cadre should at least attempt a scenario as detailed as the one put forth by NIST using docuementary evidence and testing of their own.

Sure, just given them the access, funding and resources. And while we're fantasizing, let's get the actual steel.

 

[beachnut]

...

Sure, just given them the access, funding and resources. And while we're fantasizing, let's get the actual steel.

Why can't super-truther Gage fund the quest for truth. Gage has 1600 "experts", doing nothing to spread the truth, doing nothing to stop Gage from spreading nonsense. Gage has 300,000 to 400,000 dollars each year donated by idiots. There is the funding, resources, and lots of "experts". What is stopping you guys? 10 more years of failure, locked in. 911 truth, the do nothing movement, spreading delusions and lies.

 

[RedIbis]

The physical evidence that RedIbis wants to see [..] is actual structural members recovered from WTC7.

Snip to cut out the silliness and get to the relevant parts of your post.

This evidence does not exist. Truthers love to point out that is has been shipped to China where it was melted.

Not just "Truthers" actual newspaper articles.

This physical evidence is not ever going to show up.

Agreed.

If RedIbis, and truthers like him,

There's only one RedIbis. See, Oy, you make good points, you're obviously very knowledgable and a credit to this forum, but these simplistic labeling tactics cheapen your rhetoric.

REALLY only accept ANY collapse theory at all if physical evidence is provided, then it follos logically that RedIbis, and truthers like him, will NEVER accept ANY collapse theory at all, because we know that all the physical evidence is destroyed. This includes any possible truther theory of intentional demolition.

Again, in this silly slop of namecalling you're actually making a point I agree with, an important one. I don't have any pretense that physical evidence will be accessed to prove either NIST's somewhat ridiculous WTC 7 hypotheses or controlled demolition.

The question then is: RedIbis, are you prepared to ever accept any theory of intenional demolition for WTC7?

Sure, as soon as someone has unfettered access to the actual steel. Since that's not likely to happen you have a stalemate of competing hypotheses and explanations.

 

[Christopher7]

The width of the seat is on the plans. See post #6 & #8 of this thread.

From post #29
NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 pg 527 [pdf pg189]
"A girder was considered to have lost vertical support when its web was no longer supported by the bearing seat. The bearing seat at Column 79 was 11 in. wide. Thus, when the girder end at Column 79 had been pushed laterally at least 5.5 in., it was no longer supported by the bearing seat."

A W33x130 beam has an 11.5 inch flange
http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehou...2f9c9c4280baa6

and the seat is wider than the flange so it's at least 12 inches wide, not 11 inches.
http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/2503/fig821.jpg

Provide NIST your feedback and request a response.

When faced with a fact that proves NIST lied and their theory doesn't explain the collapse, you refuse to acknowledge it.

 

[LSSBB]

When faced with a fact that proves NIST lied and their theory doesn't explain the collapse, you refuse to acknowledge it.

How do you know they lied? Why not submit feedback and see what they say? If they blow you off, write your Congressman! If you aren't American, recruit a buddy to do it for you.

 

[Christopher7]

How do you know they lied? Why not submit feedback and see what they say? If they blow you off, write your Congressman! If you aren't American, recruit a buddy to do it for you.

I have already answered that. They know what the flange width is 11.5 inches and the seat is wider. Furthermore, they have the drawings that show the flange was 12 inches.

 

[tfk]

I have already answered that. They know what the flange width is 11.5 inches and the seat is wider. Furthermore, they have the drawings that show the flange was 12 inches.

You have zero appreciation for the issues involved.

If things were as trivially simple as you express, then the beam wouldn't fall off of the seat until it moved 11.5".

Yet NIST's estimate is still right.

You've got no talent for this stuff.

Just bluster.

 

[LSSBB]

I have already answered that. They know what the flange width is 11.5 inches and the seat is wider. Furthermore, they have the drawings that show the flange was 12 inches.

They already responded to you on the discrepancy? I'm sorry, I didn't catch that. Where did you post that?

 

[ozeco41]

...I don't have any pretense that physical evidence will be accessed to prove either NIST's ... WTC 7 hypotheses or controlled demolition.....

And those two are not mutually exclusive opposites.

A) Controlled demolition was involved OR CD was NOT involved.

B) NIST's hypothesis is correct OR NIST's hypothesis is not correct (If they wish pedants can rephrase that in scientific form. )

ALTERNATIVE to "B)"
B2) NIST's hypothesis is adequate for the purpose OR it is not adequate

Whether or not NIST adequately explained the mechanism of collapse is irrelevant to consideration of the CD question. (And nit-pickers can explain that more fully if they wish. )

 

[ozeco41]

...I don't have any pretense that physical evidence will be accessed to prove either NIST's ... WTC 7 hypotheses or controlled demolition.....

And those two are not mutually exclusive opposites.

A) Controlled demolition was involved OR CD was NOT involved.

B) NIST's hypothesis is correct OR NIST's hypothesis is not correct (If they wish pedants can rephrase that in scientific form. )

ALTERNATIVE to "B)"
B2) NIST's hypothesis is adequate for the purpose OR it is not adequate

Whether or not NIST adequately explained the mechanism of collapse is irrelevant to consideration of the CD question. (And nit-pickers can explain that more fully if they wish. )

 

[Christopher7]

They already responded to you on the discrepancy? I'm sorry, I didn't catch that. Where did you post that?

You misinterpreted what I said. May I recommend "Rosie's Remedial Reader" ?

"I answered that. They know what the flange width is 11.5 inches and the seat is wider. Furthermore, they have the drawings that show the flange was 12 inches." refers to "How do you know they lied?"

A letter to NIST regarding the walk off impossibility will have to be sent by a qualified structural engineer.

I have spoken with staff persons of my Congresscritter before but I have gotten no response from him.

But your question is an attempt to sidestep the fact that you cannot deny or deal with.

NIST lied about the girder being 11 inches wide. This was not an innocent mistake. They had the correct measurement.

 

[LSSBB]

You misinterpreted what I said. May I recommend "Rosie's Remedial Reader" ?

"I answered that. They know what the flange width is 11.5 inches and the seat is wider. Furthermore, they have the drawings that show the flange was 12 inches." refers to "How do you know they lied?"

A letter to NIST regarding the walk off impossibility will have to be sent by a qualified structural engineer.

I have spoken with staff persons of my Congresscritter before but I have gotten no response from him.

But your question is an attempt to sidestep the fact that you cannot deny or deal with.

NIST lied about the girder being 11 inches wide. This was not an innocent mistake. They had the correct measurement.

How do you KNOW that it wasn't an innocent mistake?

 

[MarkLindeman]

A fair point and a good question. Perhaps, you'll see what is fair in my response. Alternative explanations for the collapses are at least equally justifiable because NIST's WTC 7 report is wholly without physical evidence. If you want to rely on documentary evidence, unfortunately, there's far greater precedence for, and similarity to, controlled demolition than the unprecedented scenario NIST puts forth.

Before I am willing to accept that there is anything "fair" about this response, you'll have to explain whether and how it differs from saying that alternative explanations for the Challenger disasters are at least equally justifiable because there is no physical evidence for the failure of the O-rings. Is there any difference?

(To be clear, I don't know of any evidence to rule out sabotage in the Challenger case. By Truth Movement rules, it isn't clear to me that such evidence could exist, since presumably the people in a position to speak to the matter all were paid directly or indirectly by the government.)

Do you have any "documentary" examples of buildings undergoing uncontrolled fires that were destroyed by controlled demolition without prior public knowledge or straightforward evidence ("physical" or otherwise) that any mechanism for CD was in place? If you really think this scenario is obviously less "unprecedented" than NIST's, it would be interesting to know why.

 

[Christopher7]

How do you KNOW that it wasn't an innocent mistake?

The drawings say the seat was 1 foot 0 inches.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8094966&postcount=8

NIST said it was 11 inches. It was NOT an innocent mistake. Give it up.

 

[MarkLindeman]

A letter to NIST regarding the walk off impossibility will have to be sent by a qualified structural engineer.

Gee, that positively suffuses me with confidence in your analysis. Your repeated insistence that you can read NIST's collective mind doesn't help your cause, either.

Even if we stipulate for the sake of argument that the girder on Floor 13 wasn't pushed off its support by thermal expansion of the beam, we're a long way from concluding that Column 79 didn't fail due to damage related to the fires. So while I think that you've demonstrated relevance, I don't see how you've done more than that.

ETA: Although I think the snark is completely appropriate, I also respect your honesty in this respect.

 

[LSSBB]

The drawings say the seat was 1 foot 0 inches.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8094966&postcount=8

NIST said it was 11 inches. It was NOT an innocent mistake. Give it up.

You aren't answering my question. How do you KNOW it wasn't an innocent mistake? You know, the kind people make when they crash a Mars probe because someone forgot to convert between metric and English?

While I'm at it, how do you KNOW it makes any significant difference in the final outcome?

 

[Christopher7]

Gee, that positively suffuses me with confidence in your analysis. Your repeated insistence that you can read NIST's collective mind doesn't help your cause, either.

Strawman!
The drawings said 1 feet 0 inches and NIST said 11 inches. It's not a matter of mind reading, it's obvious that NIST lied.

Even if we stipulate for the sake of argument that the girder on Floor 13 wasn't pushed off its support by thermal expansion of the beam, we're a long way from concluding that Column 79 didn't fail due to damage related to the fires. So while I think that you've demonstrated relevance, I don't see how you've done more than that.

Even at this point you still don't know what the NIST hypothesis is.

That was the failure that started the collapse. Without it, there was no collapse. It could not have collapsed if the seat was 12 inches wide. That's why NIST lied about it. They did lie about it and there is no other reason for them to lie about it. You just can't accept that so you keep trying to find reasons not to believe it.

 

[LSSBB]

Strawman!
The drawings said 1 feet 0 inches and NIST said 11 inches. It's not a matter of mind reading, it's obvious that NIST lied.

Even at this point you still don't know what the NIST hypothesis is.

That was the failure that started the collapse. Without it, there was no collapse. It could not have collapsed if the seat was 12 inches wide. That's why NIST lied about it. They did lie about it and there is no other reason for them to lie about it. You just can't accept that so you keep trying to find reasons not to believe it.

Why wouldn't it have collapsed with the extra inch?