So you can't actually prove NIST lied. Got it.
If the best you have is crying to the heavens about a possible mistake of an inch, I can see why Truthers haven't made much progress.
Last edited:
WTC7 and the girder walk-off between column 79 and 44
- Thread starter Gamolon
- Start date
- Status
If the best you have is crying to the heavens about a possible mistake of an inch, I can see why Truthers haven't made much progress.
Miragememories
Banned
When the mistake involves a large percentage error, on a basic critical engineering dimension, published in a final report by a prestigious U.S. government engineering agency, it is reasonable to examine the investigative consequences of this "innocent mistake"?
MM
Last edited:
MarkLindeman
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2012
- Messages
- 493
No, it isn't "obvious" at all. I don't see how you can even be sure that NIST was wrong, much less that NIST lied. Frankly, I strongly suspect that you would reject your own evidence if it appeared to prove the opposite point.
If you stop making stuff up about other people, things might go better for you.
If the second sentence means anything, it means something quite different than the first sentence.
If you can prove that, then why not do so, instead of persisting in unfounded speculation about other people?
That is a lot of words to avoid the question of how Chris7 can somehow be absolutely certain someone didn't just goof up.
Also, 1 inch is a "large percentage error"? That's about 8% of a foot. Percentage of what, exactly?
Last edited:
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
I agree it is reasonable to examine and investigate the consequences. I don't agree that you can prejudge the motivations and the outcomes before the investigation is conducted to a point where you can prove the motivations and outcomes.
NoahFence
Banned
Wrong, wrong, wrong!!!
Without THAT failure, there would have been another. Period. End of discussion.
'
Chris, you fancy yourself some sort of twoofer expert? Are you KIDDING?
With zero knowledge of any of the relevant fields, even I can prove you and every other truther wrong at the drop of a hat. Maybe not with irrelevant minutae, but certainly with the conclusions. Just end this charade once and for all. Move on with your life and try to find something else to be wrong about, preferrably something other than the single most witnessed and investigated crime in HUMAN HISTORY.
Like a 2x4? Good luck with your failed movement.
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Yeah, I hate to "just ask questions", but is there any chance that the 11.5 in 12 in discrepancy has anything to do with the use of "nominal size" measurements on the drawings? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominal_size
ozeco41
Philosopher
Could be. But it matters not anyway. For all practical purposes the two are the same.
Whatever reason the two dimensions appear in different places is obviously just one of those minor insignificant details which would not even be worth the effort of correcting. That presuming it was noticed in the first place. Clearly either width would suit the purpose. I would be surprised if any set of building construction drawings were 100% free of irrelevant minor discrepancies. And what was actually built could be different again - in irrelevant details that is. No sensible person would think otherwise and it is a total waste of time trying to analyse why any specific discrepancy arose.
The only reason(s) it is being discussed here are:
A) the desperation of truthers to find fault thereby avoiding discussing the real issue - they want to claim CD and know they are on a loser; THEREFORE
B) truthers adopt trolling tactics to make sure the real issues are not debated. And this nonsense is good enough for that purpose.
As several sensible members have said in various ways "So what?" The building still fell down; the noticeable collapse started with the east penthouse falling into the interior of the building THEREFORE Column 79 had failed 'coz it was directly below the penthouse....
.... AND there was no evidence of CD.
All the rest of the nit-picking is truther/trolls evasive games.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
I would tend to doubt it.
Not that it really matters but, is anyone sure these drawings are "as built"?
Last edited:
NoahFence
Banned
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
That's actually what I was wondering. For all we know, the actual footing may have been exactly the length that was used by NIST. That's why the important thing is to see if it really matters. This is the kind of thing that requires either a re-running of the simulation or an analysis of the factors going into it. In other words, C7 cannot know off hand if it makes a significant difference, and the rest of us can only speculate also, however maybe arrive at a good guess if we are structural engineers and do some calculations, or C7 if he shows he can do the math and can create a model of the column and it's connections.
While he's at it he can work on doing a model of how the CD would work.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Indeed, so why do you choose to ignore it?
The documentary evidence does support the hypotheses that the beams would expand and by how much they would expand and how much force that would create laterally on the girder. All of this is calculated using acceptable engineering ideas.
There is no significant let alone compelling reason to believe that the steel in WTC 7 was unidentifiable decades after construction. I am sure you have read the explanation of that. YOU and the 911 conspiracy proponents have absolutely nothing even remotely concrete to support the notion that this is a lie. All you have is your suspicions which are born from your paranoia of gov't and any person or organization which you can connect to the US gov't even if by the slimmest thread.
You take it on faith that NIST lied about this and do not even question that point.
On the contrary, your documentary evidence is solely that the manner by which the structure collapsed 'looks like' a controlled demolition. However even at that it only does so in the fact that the structure's components followed the direction of gravitational force which is absolutely to be expected of anything that loses support for any reason whatsoever. There are no sounds of explosives, there are no window breakages to support the idea of a blast large enough to sever heavy columns. Nor is there any documentary evidence to suggest that any explosive or thermitic material, let alone in quantity enough to sever large columns, ever existed in WTC 7(or the towers for that matter).
Most certainly you side has no documentary evidence to counter that for beam expansion and girder walk off. Instead you simply dismiss it out of hand.
In fact the only hypothesis I have seen to counter beam expansion mediated walk-off is beam contraction in a cooling phase which would pull the girder. This has been suggested by the CBUTH, an organization whose members are architects and engineers (sound familiar?) and urban planners.
So you harbour suspicion of any and all gov;t funded groups but would still support, say AE911T, if they were to receive gov't funding? Wouldn't that automatically mean that anything they came up with could be suspect? Let's say that an independent study is done by persons supported by the 911 TM and they find that WTC 7 would indeed have succumbed to the fire damage. What would we see? Perhaps something similar to what we now see of the independent study of the red-grey chips? I would guarantee it!
I have asked you before exactly what the steel is going to do for you. What steel would you want? You at one time IIRC called for finding col 79. It was pointed out to you then that this would give you absolutely nothing other than to indicate that col 79 did in fact fail. So did every other column and it is not possible to tell which failed first by examining the rubble of the columns. It would not show you that a girder walked-off. It was over 400 feet long and individual floor levels are not marked on the steel so you cannot even find the girder seat you want to look at. There are 40 of them that look the same!
You then might wish to see the beams and girders and there you may be able to see some that suffered heat induced twisting or buckling but even then you still cannot positively identify the location of those members so you cannot positively identify those which you would be concerned with. You also cannot determine if heat induced deformations are from pre-collapse fires or post collapse underground fires, so once again you are stymied.
Again I ask, exactly what structural steel members would you want investigated and how do you propose picking them out of the rubble and identifying them?
Last edited:
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
,,,, or when a large passenger aircraft runs out of fuel at 30,000 ft because of an incorrect coversion between pounds and kilograms.
,, or an engineer changing the hanging support for two elevated walkways of a hotel lobby (from what the original drawings specified) and failing to notice that this would result in twice the expected stress on the upper walkway's flanges connecting to the supports(resulted in structural failure and people dieing)
Last edited:
ozeco41
Philosopher
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
I translated so any "truthers" reading this could understand.You put it much simpler than I did....
Maybe I should use less words....
ozeco41
Philosopher
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
I had asked earlier if the drawings refered to rough cut while 11 inches were the finished dimensions.
C7 asserts though that NIST absolutely had to have been deliberately lieing. So it remains then to find out what person authored that passage and accuse him. That person has obviously not come forward and there would be 3 reasons for that AFAICS ; he hasn't read it and seen his words changed (not likely. I would suspect that anyone authoring a passage in such a report would in fact check the finished product. People take pride in their own work.) in this case he either knows its wrong and did so deliberately
; OR did not do it and is not saying anything for fear of repercussions. This case would require not only that the dimensions be lied about but also either the calculations or the conclusions. An engineer who's work has been so massively changed would immediately question it unless NIST engineers work in continual and constant fear of massive retaliation. Its possible that he gets bought off but are TPTB going to trust to bribery a component of their going to jail for a cover up of mass murder? really?
; OR it was noticed, was a mistake, or confusion of in-place/as-built dimensions vs. original drawings..
At any rate it, as ozeco said, matters not since there is NO evidence of large explosions or the use of thermite.
Last edited:
triforcharity
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 13,961
Also, could it have been different from the plans, and the as built specs?
I know that occasionally, something is substituted in a plan, and signed off by an engineer, but wouldn't show up in the shop drawings.
Could this be the case?
If this is the case, then of course C7 will need to apologize for calling the engineers liars.
ETA: DGM and others already beat me to this.
Last edited:
- Status