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

[triforcharity]

Burned out is a relative term in this usage. Your literal interpretation does not apply. The fuel had been exhausted and the fires died down. Small spot fires no doubt remained but they would not be hot enough to effect the floor beams above and you know it.

Prove it. You need to define "small spot fires" too. You also need to show your math. List any assumptions and your margin of error.

 

[Miragememories]

Tony, having been through similar "debates" in my own area of expertise, I don't ascribe much facial credibility to your assertion or your formatting. If I changed a few words, you could be TruthIsAll describing the supposed proof that Kerry beat Bush.

As things stand at the moment, the debate specifically about the girder rests on your authority vis-a-vis tfk's and NIST's. You haven't done enough work for an appeal to the calculations to be persuasive on its own.

As for the broader debate(?) about why WTC 7 collapsed, there's a huge discontinuity between your narrow technical arguments and your head-scratching appeals to common sense, and you have done hardly any work at all to bridge that gap. In the year 2012, I am not holding my breath.

I have little hope of convincing you that I'm honest, since after all, I fail to agree with you. But this is where we are.

You can be honest, and wrong, at the same time.

MM

 

[LSSBB]

You are blowing smoke in a lame attempt to hand wave Tony's calculations and spreadsheet. Provide your own that shows he is wrong or STFU.

Neither you or tfk knows what you are talking about anyway. If you do, then you answer those questions and explain why they are necessary to do a spreadsheet.

I don't need to answer the questions, I'm not trying to prove NIST wrong.

I'll tell you this as far as what goes into the spreadsheet: Garbage In, Garbage Out. If you (or anyone else) is going to promote yourselves as "disproving NIST", you need to show what you are talking about. Tfk raises valid Engineering Questions about your conjecture, and no answer from the NIST critics, just squeaks because of hurt feelings, and attempts to shift the burden of proof.

All hat and no cattle.

 

[pgimeno]

delete

 

[tsig]

I don't need to answer the questions, I'm not trying to prove NIST wrong.

I'll tell you this as far as what goes into the spreadsheet: Garbage In, Garbage Out. If you (or anyone else) is going to promote yourselves as "disproving NIST", you need to show what you are talking about. Tfk raises valid Engineering Questions about your conjecture, and no answer from the NIST critics, just squeaks because of hurt feelings, and attempts to shift the burden of proof.

All hat and no cattle.

Wait a minute, isn't the data in the graph the same as the data in the spreadsheet?

ETA: Found it and looked and it is the same data. The spreadsheet data looks like a standard table so it looks like Tony c&ped a spreadsheet added a graph and that's his calculations that disprove NIST.

 

[leftysergeant]

Tony and Chris also labor under the same false assumption that everything was still alligned as built in the structure, that all distances remained the same from one point to another.

FDNY knew from about noon onward that this was not the case.

The building was showing distortion almost as soon as the dust from the north tower cleared.

Number crunching is not going to prove anything definitive unless were are talking about distances so great that elements could not have interacted with each other.

"Close enough" is close enough when you do not have exact values to plug into your equations.

An alternative theory of what DID happen might be an arguement against the accepted narrative.

Aint any of those available, either, right now.

 

[NoahFence]

You can be honest, and wrong, at the same time.

MM

So you're saying there's a chance that NIST made an innocent mistake, and that they're not the evil boogeymen that you people need them to be?

 

[Justin39640]

So you're saying there's a chance that NIST made an innocent mistake, and that they're not the evil boogeymen that you people need them to be?

Puppets usually don't know their strings are being pulled... BWHAHAHAHA!

 

[Christopher7]

Wait a minute, isn't the data in the graph the same as the data in the spreadsheet?

ETA: Found it and looked and it is the same data. The spreadsheet data looks like a standard table so it looks like Tony c&ped a spreadsheet added a graph and that's his calculations that disprove NIST.

I had to alter the spreadsheet to get it to fit on a screen. I tried deleting rows but that screwed up the graph. That's when I discovered that the spreadsheet was generating the graph. So I took a screen shot and altered that.

There's been a lotta yadda and denial here but no rebuttal.

tfk has not done his own spreadsheet because he doesn't know how. Someone who actually knew what they were talking about would have done as Tony did and make a spreadsheet a long time ago.

 

[Jackanory]

I had to alter the spreadsheet to get it to fit on a screen. I tried deleting rows but that screwed up the graph. That's when I discovered that the spreadsheet was generating the graph. So I took a screen shot and altered that.

There's been a lotta yadda and denial here but no rebuttal.

tfk has not done his own spreadsheet because he doesn't know how. Someone who actually knew what they were talking about would have done as Tony did and make a spreadsheet a long time ago.

So what? Why havent you done something about it? Why are you here? You are achieving **** all here!

Your involved in a pissing contest on an obscure wacky forum. Nobody can do anything for you here.

11 years of achieving **** all. We all know ya have nothing. We all know ya have failed time and time again. Pity that you havent got the balls to take it to the next level.........ya know, to someone who can do something about it. I suppose the hurdle is actually convincing them hey? lol. Must try harder.

Pass your pretty graph and spreadsheet to NIST. Off ya go. No time to waste. Tick ck, tick tock.

 

[cjnewson88]

I just don't see why this is here.

Tony, you have evidence that NIST's probable collapse sequence is incorrect? Have a couple of other engineers look over your work, and submit it to NIST. See what they have to say.

Going round in circles in this forum with both sides yelling 'burden of proof' is pointless.

Let us know when you've submitted it to NIST and their response.

 

[twinstead]

If the "evidence" that the commonly-held narrative of 9-11 is wrong was as compelling as some folks insist it is, the "debate" wouldn't still be on relatively obscure internet forums and fringe websites a decade after the event.

 

[leftysergeant]

We are still stuck with the fact that exact values are not available to plug into any of Tony's calculations. NIST makes sort of the same mistake, but produces results which at least appear to match observable phenomona in this time/space continuum.

Tony and C7 do not even offer an alternative that makes any sense.

 

[LSSBB]

I had to alter the spreadsheet to get it to fit on a screen. I tried deleting rows but that screwed up the graph. That's when I discovered that the spreadsheet was generating the graph. So I took a screen shot and altered that.

There's been a lotta yadda and denial here but no rebuttal.

tfk has not done his own spreadsheet because he doesn't know how. Someone who actually knew what they were talking about would have done as Tony did and make a spreadsheet a long time ago.

There's nothing to rebut. You still haven't clearly stated your assumptions. tfk's questions directly impact your line of reasoning, and you/Tony aren't responding to them.

 

[ozeco41]

Tony and Chris also labor under the same false assumption that everything was still alligned as built in the structure, that all distances remained the same from one point to another....

That is the same trick that C7 and others have been pushing throughout this thread.

It is the same error that Tony made in at least three published papers - lots of fancy looking maths to fool the gullible but the underlying model that the maths apply to is wrong.

It is also a standard truther or troll trick. Focus attention on a possible anomaly and keep the discussion on that narrow focus so people don't spot that the argument has lost the plot.

The devious trick is extended by Tony's claim of an apparent truism:

...Engineers need to support their claims mathematically. In industry making claims without mathematical support for the arguments is frowned upon,...

WRONG as it stands. The first thing engineers need to do is to demonstrate that they are correctly analysing what they are trying to argue THEN, if necessary, they can apply the maths to a correct model or a valid set of assumptions.

No matter how impressive or confusing the maths if it relates to a wrong analysis it will prove nothing. And that is the situation here.

We are still stuck with the fact that exact values are not available to plug into any of Tony's calculations. NIST makes sort of the same mistake, but produces results which at least appear to match observable phenomona in this time/space continuum.

Tony and C7 do not even offer an alternative that makes any sense.

Exactly that.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I just don't see why this is here.

Tony, you have evidence that NIST's probable collapse sequence is incorrect? Have a couple of other engineers look over your work, and submit it to NIST. See what they have to say.

Going round in circles in this forum with both sides yelling 'burden of proof' is pointless.

Let us know when you've submitted it to NIST and their response.

The video showing some of the revelations due to the recent drawing releases, like the 12" wide girder seat at column 79 and the web to flange stiffeners on the girder, is what prompted this thread.

A letter, which I contributed to, was sent to the NIST about the effects of these features on their analysis in the last month by another engineer. I haven't heard anything yet.

Thanks for the comment.

 

[Clayton Moore]

A computer model to scale will allow the building support structure to be programmed to fail in as many locations as desired. Let's say the support for every floor damaged by fire and above failed simultaneously. The model would retain connected mass and weight of those floors. What would happen to the undamaged/pristine lower floors? The model would certainly provide the answer.

Remember the HOW of the structural failure makes no difference to the undamaged portion of the building.

Remember the model has one major task, to make the undamaged, lower portion of the buildings completely fail only because of the weight of the building above them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_simulation#Computer_simulation_in_practical_contexts

Computer simulation in practical contexts

Computer simulations are used in a wide variety of practical contexts, such as:

analysis of air pollutant dispersion using atmospheric dispersion modeling
design of complex systems such as aircraft and also logistics systems.
design of Noise barriers to effect roadway noise mitigation
flight simulators to train pilots
weather forecasting
Simulation of other computers is emulation.
forecasting of prices on financial markets (for example Adaptive Modeler)
behavior of structures (such as buildings and industrial parts) under stress and other conditions
design of industrial processes, such as chemical processing plants
Strategic Management and Organizational Studies
Reservoir simulation for the petroleum engineering to model the subsurface reservoir
Process Engineering Simulation tools.
Robot simulators for the design of robots and robot control algorithms
Urban Simulation Models that simulate dynamic patterns of urban development and responses to urban land use and transportation policies. See a more detailed article on Urban Environment Simulation.
Traffic engineering to plan or redesign parts of the street network from single junctions over cities to a national highway network, for transportation system planning, design and operations. See a more detailed article on Simulation in Transportation.
modeling car crashes to test safety mechanisms in new vehicle models

Like I said it would be a snap.

 

[beachnut]

A computer model to scale will allow the building support structure to be programmed to fail in as many locations as desired. ...

What are you talking about? What does "to scale" mean with respect to a computer simulation?

Computer simulations are used in a wide variety of practical contexts, such as:
behavior of structures (such as buildings and industrial parts) under stress and other conditions

There was a computer model done. Did you miss it?

 

[MarkLindeman]

You can be honest, and wrong, at the same time.

Yes, of course. That's a fundamental basis of rational discourse. But if Tony isn't willing to hold up his end, there isn't much I can do about it.

 

[slowsmile]

The video showing some of the revelations due to the recent drawing releases, like the 12" wide girder seat at column 79 and the web to flange stiffeners on the girder, is what prompted this thread.

A letter, which I contributed to, was sent to the NIST about the effects of these features on their analysis in the last month by another engineer. I haven't heard anything yet.

A couple of days ago "there are also letters being sent to NIST".

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8217154&postcount=1281

Today a letter was sent "in the last month".

I wonder what claims tomorrow might bring