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

[gerrycan]

You will get the reward of knowing that you contributed toward getting a real investigation into the collapse of wtc7.

 

[gerrycan]

Or maybe, just maybe, it's you who are wrong and it's you who are the incompetent engineer.

Just saying.

And maybe not, just saying.

 

[uke2se]

You will get the reward of knowing that you contributed toward getting a real investigation into the collapse of wtc7.

There's already been one. Why should I distrust the most distinguished engineers in the US and instead trust you, a nobody on the internet? No, that's not going to happen. If you fork over the cash, I'll take your case to NIST. If you don't, feel free to wallow in obscurity.

 

[uke2se]

And maybe not, just saying.

Nah, I'll do as the twoofers usually do and go with my gut feeling.

 

[ozeco41]

...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?

You seem to have two objectives confused - a situation which I have met many times in 9/11 discussion.

What truth are you searching for:
A) Whether or not there was CD involved in the collapse of WTC7? OR
B) Demonstrate that NIST was wrong on something or other.
Those two are separable and trying to address both in the same process will only lead to confusion. (Granted causing confusion could be intentional if the objective was trolling. )

To my mind the primary objective is "A)" - "Was there CD?"

If that is your real objective then separate your thinking from the confusion as to whether NIST was right or wrong. Approach the topic from zero base and consider the evidence.

At some stage you will have to address the six questions I posted in my previous comments - or other equivalent questions:

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?

You also seem to have your approach to solving the problem backwards - again a situation which I have met many times in 9/11 discussion.

You are starting from details before you have even resolved the context. So there is no way to know whether the details are relevant or not. Come at it the other way and take those six questions first before you even think about the NIST right or wrong question. It is a question of saving mental energy. If you have no answer to all those six (or equivalent ones) then there is no point in worrying about whether NIST was right or wrong. The NIST "error" if there was one simply remains as an unexplained anomaly.

BTW That is the path I took personally some years ago (2007) in regard to WTC collapses. For WTC1 & WTC2 I can explain the collapse mechanisms and show to my own professional satisfaction that there was no need for CD. I cannot prove that there was no CD even though it was not needed - but consideration of those six questions in the scientific mode says "CD was highly extremely near enough to infinitely unlikely" OR in layman's terms "CD was impossible". And I prefer layman terminology for ease of typing.

 

[DGM]

They misrepresented the elements that make up the connection at column 79. At best thats incompetent.

And this is your professional opinion? How does this effect the totality of the report? Are you sure they "got it wrong"? Have you ever heard of "as built"?

Seems like a laymen is afraid to confront the professional (you won't contact NIST). Why?

 

[gerrycan]

There's already been one. Why should I distrust the most distinguished engineers in the US and instead trust you, a nobody on the internet? No, that's not going to happen. If you fork over the cash, I'll take your case to NIST. If you don't, feel free to wallow in obscurity.

If these are the best engineers you have, then how could they miss so much detail on this connection? Or maybe they thought the other elements were just not that important so could be left out. Or maybe, just maybe it didn't suit the conclusion that they had already came to before citing the cause.
As for the money thing, sure, post your paypal details and i will sub you a few dollars to greyhound your way over to NIST with my youtube videos, great idea.

 

[DGM]

gerrycan:

This is really, really easy. Why don't to contact the people you claim are wrong (NIST) and explain to them where they made their mistake (or accuse them of being incompetent)?

 

[gerrycan]

And this is your professional opinion? How does this effect the totality of the report? Are you sure they "got it wrong"? Have you ever heard of "as built"?

Seems like a laymen is afraid to confront the professional (you won't contact NIST). Why?

So you are saying that a 'layman' should contact the people who have been described on this very page as being the best in the US, to point out their mistakes? aye ok.
Which of these elements do you think would have not been present in the 'as built' drawings, and why?

 

[uke2se]

If these are the best engineers you have, then how could they miss so much detail on this connection? Or maybe they thought the other elements were just not that important so could be left out. Or maybe, just maybe it didn't suit the conclusion that they had already came to before citing the cause.

Or maybe you are incompetent. I think this is the parsimoniously best answer.

As for the money thing, sure, post your paypal details and i will sub you a few dollars to greyhound your way oer to NIST with my youtube videos, great idea.

I work for standard consultant's fee. Depending on what you want me to do with your youtube video, this can range from around 500 dollars up to 5000 for a full week's pay, not including taxes etc.

If you agree, please post what you would like done with regards to your youtube video and NIST, and I'll PM you my details.

 

[ozeco41]

They misrepresented the elements that make up the connection at column 79...

Your logic is arse about. And you are emotively mixing up two objectives.

Try separating your claims:

The First Claim is that something is factually wrong about the description. That leads to reasoning of whether it matters and what differences it makes - all factual technical issues.

The Second Claim is that NIST misrepresented. That is a complaint about NIST professional standards independent of the technical topic.

So which one are you trying to pursue here? Are you trying to discuss why the WTC7 fell down OR are you attacking the professional standards of NIST?

... At best thats incompetent.

So what?

 

[gerrycan]

gerrycan:

This is really, really easy. Why don't to contact the people you caim are wrong (NIST) and explain to them where they made their mistake (or accuse them of being incompetent).

OK, no problem, i just thought that you guys were interested in this sort of stuff, and that you had a forum set up here to debate it on. I can see why you dont want to on this occasion.

 

[DGM]

So you are saying that a 'layman' should contact the people who have been described on this very page as being the best in the US, to point out their mistakes? aye ok.
Which of these elements do you think would have not been present in the 'as built' drawings, and why?

Yes. You are saying they got it wrong. What's the problem? Are you not sure of yourself?

 

[gerrycan]

Your logic is arse about. And you are emotively mixing up two objectives.

Try separating your claims:

The First Claim is that something is factually wrong about the description. That leads to reasoning of whether it matters and what differences it makes - all factual technical issues.

The Second Claim is that NIST misrepresented. That is a complaint about NIST professional standards independent of the technical topic.

So which one are you trying to pursue here? Are you trying to discuss why the WTC7 fell down OR are you attacking the professional standards of NIST?

So what?

Not at all, something could be misrepresented out of incompetence, and lack of technical ability. Do you think it suited NISTs story to leave out these elements in their analysis?

 

[uke2se]

OK, no problem, i just thought that you guys were interested in this sort of stuff, and that you had a forum set up here to debate it on. I can see why you dont want to on this occasion.

We discuss conspiracy theories. We are giving you the benefit of doubt and treating your case as an engineering question and giving you advice on how to persue the course of action that would let your results be looked at seriously.

You seemingly don't want professional scrutiny of your results, though. Strange that.

 

[DGM]

OK, no problem, i just thought that you guys were interested in this sort of stuff, and that you had a forum set up here to debate it on. I can see why you dont want to on this occasion.

This makes no sense. I want you to contact them with your problem. Why do you think discussing it here is the best course of action? Isn't your problem with NIST?

 

[MarkLindeman]

So you are saying that a 'layman' should contact the people who have been described on this very page as being the best in the US, to point out their mistakes? aye ok.

Why not, if you trust your analysis? If you're treating them as professionals, of course you would present your critique to them before splashing it all over YouTube. Of course, if you're convinced that they're conspirators conspiring poorly, then there wouldn't be much point. But are you sure you're entitled to arrive at that conclusion?

 

[ozeco41]

If these are the best engineers you have, then how could they miss so much detail on this connection? ...

Read the thread - the question of differing details between progressive versions of plans and the actual "Work As Built" has been extensively discussed.

...Or maybe they thought the other elements were just not that important so could be left out...

Your statement is ambiguous. Leave the details out of the plans OR leave the actual bits out of the structure? If you clarify your thinking you may answer your intended question for yourself.

...Or maybe, just maybe it didn't suit the conclusion that they had already came to before citing the cause...

Change of topic. Now you allege professional malfeasance?

 

[gerrycan]

Yes. You are saying they got it wrong. What's the problem? Are you not sure of yourself?

Yeah youre quite right, but have you ever tried to phone these guys? We have, many times. Im just making a point in a youtube video, if all you can do is to refer me to NIST rather than dispute the points that are made, then im fine with that.

 

[uke2se]

Yeah youre quite right, but have you ever tried to phone these guys? We have, many times. Im just making a point in a youtube video, if all you can do is to refer me to NIST rather than dispute the points that are made, then im fine with that.

You could do what a real engineer would do to get his results known. Publish them in a peer reviewed journal.

FYI: Youtube isn't peer reviewed.

ETA: Alternatively: disaster@nist.gov