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

[ergo]

How as 79 connected to 44?

Are you suggesting that detail has not been included in either Tony's or NIST's analysis?

 

[LSSBB]

LSSBB, I don't think you've understood, or you would immediately recognize that there is no identification in any of those posts you've quoted of what these "missing relevant factors" are.

Single point of failure.
Lack of evidence of CD

Next? Why bother with more?

Tell me, is engineering analysis of complex system done with T-squares at the drafting board anymore? Why not? Because it is a complex system, maybe? Not adressing the complexity is a key missing factor, wouldn't you think?

 

[ergo]

Single point of failure.

The purpose of this thread is to analyze the failure mechanism that NIST proposes initiated the global collapse of WTC 7. That's what the thread is about. If ozeco doesn't like that topic, he shouldn't be posting here.

Lack of evidence of CD

This discussion is not about CD, but rather whether NIST's single failure mechanism for initiating WTC 7's global collapse is credible or even possible.

Next? Why bother with more?

Indeed, if Fog of War-style analyses are now sufficient in the engineering community to explain catastrophic structural failures, why bother with more?

Tell me, is engineering analysis of complex system done with T-squares at the drafting board anymore? Why not? Because it is a complex system, maybe? Not adressing the complexity is a key missing factor, wouldn't you think?

See my first and second points.

 

[beachnut]

Are you suggesting that detail has not been included in either Tony's or NIST's analysis?

You never read NIST, you don't have any idea what is going on. You don't know the title of the NIST reports in question. You bring special physics, the moon size debris field nonsense to the table.

You also respond to posts when you need to present about 300 to 3,000 pages of supporting work to defend Tony's failed myopic attack on NIST. CD is an issue, that is Tony's only goal, to promote CD done by unknown people for unknown crazy reasons. You should try to read NIST first, and learn what probable means.

 

[DGM]

The purpose of this thread is to analyze the failure mechanism that NIST proposes initiated the global collapse of WTC 7. That's what the thread is about. If ozeco doesn't like that topic, he shouldn't be posting here.

Ozeco's comments are in line with NIST's failure mechanism theory. They don't consider one girder in isolation.

 

[LSSBB]

The purpose of this thread is to analyze the failure mechanism that NIST proposes initiated the global collapse of WTC 7. That's what the thread is about. If ozeco doesn't like that topic, he shouldn't be posting here.

He is directly addressing the validity of the importance of the girder walk-off between column 79 and 44 and the minutae of alleged discrepancies toward the NIST conclusion of colapse due to fire-induced heating of structural members by questioning an analysis of the "single point of failure" as a lynchpin to the conclusion. Tell me how he is not.

This discussion is not about CD, but rather whether NIST's single failure mechanism for initiating WTC 7's global collapse is credible or even possible.

If there is no other credible alternative than a fire induced collapse, what other mechanism could there be?

Indeed, if Fog of War-style analyses are now sufficient in the engineering community to explain catastrophic structural failures, why bother with more?

Look up fog of war and compare it to a complex system analysis again, please. You are not making a valid comparison.

See my first and second points.

What points?

 

[newton3376]

The purpose of this thread is to analyze the failure mechanism that NIST proposes initiated the global collapse of WTC 7. That's what the thread is about. If ozeco doesn't like that topic, he shouldn't be posting here

Let us know when any of the truthers start addressing that topic then...

This discussion is not about CD, but rather whether NIST's single failure mechanism for initiating WTC 7's global collapse is credible or even possible.

Both of those have been answered by the engineering community at large and this thread specifically.

The answer is: YES it is both credible and possible.

Next question.

Indeed, if Fog of War-style analyses are now sufficient in the engineering community to explain catastrophic structural failures, why bother with more?

You are not part of the engineering community and are not qualified to discuss how an engineering analyses is performed.

Comparing "fog of war" with a complex engineering analyses shows me that you do not understand either....of course I already knew that.

See my first and second points.

Wake me up when you make some valid points..........

 

[ergo]

You are not part of the engineering community and are not qualified to discuss how an engineering analyses is performed.

As an academic proofreader and editor, I can tell when an argument is being made and when someone doesn't have a clue what they're talking about.

Comparing "fog of war" with a complex engineering analyses shows me that you do not understand either....of course I already knew that.

Where is ozeco41's engineering analysis?

Wake me up when you make some valid points..........

Pretty funny coming from someone who thinks the first storey of a steel-framed highrise would not be able to hold up the rest of the building.

 

[Justin39640]

It is amazing that the engineers who wrote that case history discussion called the Washington Monument a column many times and some <snip> here still deny it is a column. One <snip> even thinks that because it was a tapered obelisk it wasn't a column. This kind of inanity can't be made up.

It is clear that one of the reasons you guys stay anonymous is to keep from being embarassed.

The way you are comparing it, we all know it's not the same thing. I tell you what, take out the taper and stack 5 Washington Monuments on top of each other. What happens?

The WM is a system of parts working together. The same with the CN tower. The column you're trying to compare them to is only one part of a very complex system. The column you're referring to was designed for use in a COMPLETE system. It will fail when enough of its supporting system is removed. These other structures need no such support, hence your comparison fails. This <snip> realizes this basic fact. Why do you not seem to Mr. Engineer? ******* ******** *********** ****.

 

[NoahFence]

If the Washington Monument was solid column, why'd they only fix bits and pieces after the earthquake and not replace it in its entirety?

 

[newton3376]

As an academic proofreader and editor, I can tell when an argument is being made and when someone doesn't have a clue what they're talking about.

No you can't.

Your experience as a proofreader and editor do not in any way qualify you to make such determinations. You lack both the education and experience to make such pronouncements.

Where is ozeco41's engineering analysis?

You misunderstand.

The engineering analysis was done years ago. It was reviewed, debated, and finally agreed upon (in general) years ago. There is no need to do another analysis.

You do not understand why the majority of the world's Engineers ignore the truth movement and their arguments.

You do not understand why the rest of the worlds Engineers who actually bother to engage in discussions with the truth movement resort to mockery and eventually join the majority in just ignoring you.

Pretty funny coming from someone who thinks the first storey of a steel-framed highrise would not be able to hold up the rest of the building.

When you do not understand the basics.....it makes it difficult to have a discussion.

Go read a book. Go learn some Engineering, Science, or Mathematics. It will take you more than a few years..........but I suggest you go away and educate yourself before asking people who have dedicated their lives to a discipline more stupid questions. At least then you (hopefully) will understand why the questions are stupid.

 

[lexicon008]

i still find it funny that a high school physics/math teacher figured out something all those high and mighty engineers at NIST didn't...
"but I suggest you go away and educate yourself before asking people who have dedicated their lives to a discipline more stupid questions."...hmm if only Chandler hadn't asked a stupid question....

 

[ozeco41]

The purpose of this thread is to analyze the failure mechanism that NIST proposes initiated the global collapse of WTC 7¹. That's what the thread is about². If ozeco doesn't like that topic, he shouldn't be posting here³....

1 Correct. Which is why I have strictly limited myself to that context AND addressed the attempts by Tony Szamboti to improperly limit the technical context even further.
2 Correct - though redundant. See above comment.
3 Correct. Whether I like the topic or not is irrelevant seeing as I am one of the few posting here who has stayed strictly on the official topic. Meanwhile C7, Gerrycan and TS (in that chronological order) have tried to limit the topic to a narrower system that the OP. And, yes, a few enthusiastic members have addressed some broader issues. And others have been content to take Tony et al on in their own limited setting.

...This discussion is not about CD, but rather whether NIST's single failure mechanism for initiating WTC 7's global collapse is credible or even possible.

Correct again. Which is why I identified that TS (C7 and Gerrycan's) claims are sub systems with several higher level enclosing topics. Of which CD comes in a couple of levels above where TS et al want to discuss. I even foreshadowed that, if we can resolve the failed arguments at this technical level, we could then go on to the real and bigger issues.

...Indeed, if Fog of War-style analyses are now sufficient in the engineering community to explain catastrophic structural failures, why bother with more?...

Irrelevant argument by false innuendo.

As an academic proofreader and editor, I can tell when an argument is being made and when someone doesn't have a clue what they're talking about....

Have you told TS and C7 that? Tony hasn't made his argument yet. And the level of "clue" he is demonstrating is one whole level below what is needed - even though at this stage I have engaged him at the low level he chose to present his claims. Whilst I have demonstrated more than enough "clue" to put my argument: 1) Clearly, explicitly and unequivocally; 2) Accurately on topic; AND 3) In a manner which demonstrates that, on both the engineering issues and issues of burden of proof, I do know what I am saying.

As circumstantial evidence that I know what I am presenting none of you lot have dared to address the points I have clearly made.

...Where is ozeco41's engineering analysis?...

The one point of engineering analysis needed to support my current claim on this thread is made explicitly in the post #1892 at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8258431#post8258431 I even helped Tony to answer by outlining the two options available to him to respond. Plus he is free to identify other options.

Ozeco's comments are in line with NIST's failure mechanism theory. They don't consider one girder in isolation.

Exactly.

He is directly addressing the validity of the importance of the girder walk-off between column 79 and 44 and the minutae of alleged discrepancies toward the NIST conclusion of colapse due to fire-induced heating of structural members by questioning an analysis of the "single point of failure" as a lynchpin to the conclusion. Tell me how he is not....

Thank you.

Of course I'm not surprised to see misrepresentations and evasions when I post a very precisely targeted challenge.

Let's see if ergo can address what I actually said rather than his fantasy of straw, fog and innuendo.

As newton3376 puts it succinctly:

Let us know when any of the truthers start addressing that topic then...
...Wake me up when you make some valid points..........

 

[newton3376]

i still find it funny that a high school physics/math teacher figured out something all those high and mighty engineers at NIST didn't...

He didn't.

You might think he figured something out that NIST couldn't figure out, but if you actually believe that then you are clueless.

...hmm if only Chandler hadn't asked a stupid question....

Chandler makes stupid mistakes, stupid comments, and asks stupid questions....that has never changed.

 

[ozeco41]

i still find it funny that a high school physics/math teacher figured out something all those high and mighty engineers at NIST didn't...
"but I suggest you go away and educate yourself before asking people who have dedicated their lives to a discipline more stupid questions."...hmm if only Chandler hadn't asked a stupid question....

You probably don't even understand why that is a silly statement.

Chandler is a school teacher who has published a number of technical claims about WTC collapse. As far as I am aware every one of his claims is premised on faulty application of engineering physics. That is certain for every one of his claims I have examined. My only reason for the "As far as I am aware" being that I cannot comment on any I have not seen.

The issue you are mendaciously referring to relates to free fall in parts of the collapse of WTC7. The true situation being that none of us qualified engineers and applied physicists are in the slightest surprised to find bits of free fall in a catastrophic collapse.

Chandler however, being a truther and with truther affiliations, seemed to find it useful to support the false truther meme that "free fall == CD" which is utter nonsense despite being a required premise of truther belief systems.

Chandler raised a query with NIST and NIST probably was too honest in their PR to assist the incompetent and explained a bit of free fall. That bit of free fall has since been misrepresented in the type of story you are repeating without giving any thought.

Don't waste your time trying to use Chandler as an authority around here. He is wrong so often BUT you appear to not have the expertise to tell where he is wrong.



PS Oops - newton beat me to it. Teach me to 1) Write briefer; AND 2) Type faster.

 

[lexicon008]

He didn't.

You might think he figured something out that NIST couldn't figure out, but if you actually believe that then you are clueless.



Chandler makes stupid mistakes, stupid comments, and asks stupid questions....that has never changed.

so your saying that NIST knew that 7 was in free fall for 2.25 seconds before Chandler?..and why didn't they include that in their technical briefing or report until after he pointed it out to them?
Why did they have to do the calculations later if they already knew?
if it had no bearing on the collapse then why even go into it?

 

[ergo]

No you can't.

Your experience as a proofreader and editor do not in any way qualify you to make such determinations. You lack both the education and experience to make such pronouncements.

Yes, I can, newton. If you understood how to make an argument, you would understand that it's not that hard to follow someone's discussion and determine rather quickly whether they are presenting a coherent argument, whether they're faking, or whether they have no clue what they're talking about.

It doesn't surprise me that you think ozeco's empty pronouncements are above my level of understanding, because you also have provided zero engineering analyses here and you don't even seem to understand simple concepts like how highrise structures are built to handle their own gravity loads.

You're in no position to be addressing me in this manner, nor do your appeals to some imagined, anonymous, engineering majority have any grounding in reality.

 

[ozeco41]

so your saying that NIST knew that 7 was in free fall for 2.25 seconds before Chandler?..and they didn't include that in their technical briefing or report until after he pointed it out to them why?

Read my post. Free fall is a non-event. Only truthers try to make something out of it.

There were lots of irrelevant details not mentioned in the comprehensive NIST reports.

Two probable reasons being:
1) They couldn't predict all the silly questions truthers would raise; AND
2) Why should a public authority waste public funds answering idiotic questions from conspiracy nuts?

Find a "Why Chandler is wrong" thread and read it. Alternatively post one of his claims and at least one of us will show you where it is wrong.

 

[newton3376]

You probably don't even understand why that is a silly statement.

Chandler is a school teacher who has published a number of technical claims about WTC collapse. As far as I am aware every one of his claims is premised on faulty application of engineering physics. That is certain for every one of his claims I have examined. My only reason for the "As far as I am aware" being that I cannot comment on any I have not seen.

The issue you are mendaciously referring to relates to free fall in parts of the collapse of WTC7. The true situation being that none of us qualified engineers and applied physicists are in the slightest surprised to find bits of free fall in a catastrophic collapse.

Chandler however, being a truther and with truther affiliations, seemed to find it useful to support the false truther meme that "free fall == CD" which is utter nonsense despite being a required premise of truther belief systems.

Chandler raised a query with NIST and NIST probably was too honest in their PR to assist the incompetent and explained a bit of free fall. That bit of free fall has since been misrepresented in the type of story you are repeating without giving any thought.

Don't waste your time trying to use Chandler as an authority around here. He is wrong so often BUT you appear to not have the expertise to tell where he is wrong.

^^^ This.

PS Oops - newton beat me to it. Teach me to 1) Write briefer; AND 2) Type faster.

I enjoy your posts oz.....keep em coming!

Between several of the points that you and tfk have raised I would say that TS, C7, and Gerrycans arguments are done.

Stick a fork in em folks..........the shows over.

 

[ozeco41]

...It doesn't surprise me that you think ozeco's empty pronouncements are above my level of understanding,....

Just for the record I don't think my material is above your level of understanding...

...but that leads to a less polite alternate explanation.