Then write them and ask what the discrepancy means, instead of assuming that the larger numbers must be true?
WTC7 and the girder walk-off between column 79 and 44
- Thread starter Gamolon
- Start date
- Status
Once again, why do you assume that 11" is the incorrect measurement and 12" is the correct one? And further, why would NIST not bury contrary evidence if their intent was to lie about it?
OK, so we have a difference in interpretation of the report.
You claim that "walk off" is a specific term that means the W33 girder sliding (you say 6") to the west until the girder central web is aligned with the west end of the seat & then rotating CW (looking from N to S at the side of W33 girder) & dropping.
Correct?
I say that "walk off" is a generic term for the girder falling off of the seat (in any manner), which specifically includes all the details that are described in the detailed FEA analysis of section 8.8.
In other words, my definition of "walk off" includes all of those steps that I listed in my last post.
That is: W33 expanding, contacting sides of Col 79 & 44, pushed west until catches on inner surfaces of N. webs of Col 79 & 44, compressive stresses rises in W24 floor beams as a direct result of W33 being restrained at ends by column webs, W24 beams buckle & rotate W33 (rotating CCW looking from north), W33 buckles as it rotates & falls.
My contention is that, in the summary, all of the above is contained within the term "walk off".
___
How shall we settle this?
Let's see you make your case by anything other than mere assertions.
Let's see you argue like a grown-up, presenting, acknowledging & addressing the arguments AGAINST your ultimate conclusion (instead of ignoring them) as well as the argument for your conclusion.
You claim that "walk off" is a specific term that means the W33 girder sliding (you say 6") to the west until the girder central web is aligned with the west end of the seat & then rotating CW (looking from N to S at the side of W33 girder) & dropping.
Correct?
I say that "walk off" is a generic term for the girder falling off of the seat (in any manner), which specifically includes all the details that are described in the detailed FEA analysis of section 8.8.
In other words, my definition of "walk off" includes all of those steps that I listed in my last post.
That is: W33 expanding, contacting sides of Col 79 & 44, pushed west until catches on inner surfaces of N. webs of Col 79 & 44, compressive stresses rises in W24 floor beams as a direct result of W33 being restrained at ends by column webs, W24 beams buckle & rotate W33 (rotating CCW looking from north), W33 buckles as it rotates & falls.
My contention is that, in the summary, all of the above is contained within the term "walk off".
___
How shall we settle this?
Let's see you make your case by anything other than mere assertions.
Let's see you argue like a grown-up, presenting, acknowledging & addressing the arguments AGAINST your ultimate conclusion (instead of ignoring them) as well as the argument for your conclusion.
Last edited:
Ignoring the bulk of the post so you can respond to a single-quote mined line.
We researched and produced the videos mentioned in this thread at the beginning. We will happily debate anyone who feels so compelled, real time, in an open forum, providing they are genuinley trying to get to the truth about this. There is more than just a 12" seat under this girder, even if it were possible, the girder would have to walk way more than 6" to get to a point where the bottom of it were unsupported, and also there has been no mention of the sideplates, which NIST also failed to take into account in their analysis. Further,look again at plate 'pg' it is underneath the 12" 'pf' plate and increases the required walk off almost by a factor of 2. I could go on and on......and maybe i will.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Who is "we"?
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
A general contractor from NewEngland. I fired the last engineer that submitted his work via YouTube. Do you have a paper I could read?
ozeco41
Philosopher
Whoever "we" is why should anyone care about this minute detail?
Sure several members are prepared to humour C7 - he's done the mileage and gets a bit of tolerance. But the issue is of no significance other than as a truther's or troll's derail evasion.
The real issue is that some folk are trying to claim demolition in some form or other.
It is now 2012 so any of them with intelligence must know that there was no demolition. (I'll rephrase it for the benefit of those who are pedantic about "scientific terminology" -- "no one has so far produced a supportable reasoned claim for demolition".) And, since the evidence against demolition is overwhelming, we get the evasion tactics such as discussing round in circles on little bits of trivia where some truther/troll or other has located what he or she thinks is an anomaly.
The real world is full of anomalies. The reality for WTC7 is that the collapse sequence saw the east penthouse fall into the inside of the building then the outer facades fell. So column 79 and a lot more of the internal structure had failed. What more do we need to know?
If you are trying to assert that there was CD start with the real issues:
What structural members were cut to create the collapse mechanism?
What was used to cut those members?
When was that cutting material put in place?
How was that activity done under secrecy?
Why was there no evidence at the time of the collapse?
Why was there no evidence after the collapse?
Those will do for starters. And no one from the so called truth movement has been able or willing to put forward a reasoned explanation taking into account those and all the other critical factors.
That is why we are here discussing trivia. Attempting to discredit NIST. Reading all these pages of truther oriented half truths and distortions. Because no truther can support a CD claim.
So why don't you stop the posturing about challenges to debate trivia and put up a real claim. You would make history. Go for it! It would truly show that you were "...genuinley [sic] trying to get to the truth..."
I agree that the collapse initiated at column 79. As for this being a trivial detail, i disagree. The elements that made up this connection combine together to prevent the cause that NIST cite, leading to the collapse of the building. These elements were not taken into account in their analysis. NIST getting the initiating event for the collapse wrong is not trivial, though i can see why you would want to suppose that it is. There is no posturing here, we genuinely want to get to the truth about this, and we are willing to talk to anyone about it. It is an invitation, not a challenge.
The aim of these videos is to expose NISTs story as woeful, and that isn't difficult to do. Do disprove NISTs conclusions about the initiating event is to illustrate the need for a real investigation that takes into account all the possibilities. The question of the alternative cause is one that a real investigation would hopefully shed some light on. And just out of interest, how far do you think the girder would have to move in either direction to fail?
The aim of these videos is to expose NISTs story as woeful, and that isn't difficult to do. Do disprove NISTs conclusions about the initiating event is to illustrate the need for a real investigation that takes into account all the possibilities. The question of the alternative cause is one that a real investigation would hopefully shed some light on. And just out of interest, how far do you think the girder would have to move in either direction to fail?
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2010
- Messages
- 14,424
Might I suggest you take this up with NIST instead of bothering us about it?
ok, i just thought that this thread was talking about the content of the videos that we put out. Maybe i am mistaken. Great comeback though. Maybe you could take it to NIST for us and let us know what they say. Would this thread be the right place for you to post their answer?
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Have you sent your engineering videos to NIST? If not, Why?
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Why wouldn't you do this?
ETA: This is one of the most pathetic post I have even read. You are saying. "I proved them wrong, why don't you tell them and come back and tell me what they said".
Last edited:
NIST had these drawings to look at when making their conclusions about wtc7. I would prefer to have somebody competent look at the reality of the collapse of this building. There is nothing in these videos that hasnt been avaliable to NIST for long time. Maybe the body who licences the likes of gross and sunder to practise should be approached, you think thats a better idea? They hardly can be called competent engineers when they miss these kinds of details in the connection that they claimed to have studied so closely, and as such should be reassesed before being allowed to continue to practise. I will look into this possibility, thanks.
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2010
- Messages
- 14,424
If you expect me to do your work for you, I expect to be payed. How much are you offering?
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2010
- Messages
- 14,424
Or maybe, just maybe, it's you who are wrong and it's you who are the incompetent engineer.
Just saying.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
What makes you believe they are not competent (considering the fact you don't consider yourself competent enough to "look at the realities of the collapse")?
- Status