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

[A W Smith]

With a flick of a BIC, DEBUNKED!

You reek of desperation. So that's your argument, "Haha there's no physical evidence" Some argument. Well besides the fact that there probably is some steel and other things in existence, what about the Iron rich spheres? You know full well, besides a call to magic, there is no "natural" explanation for them. Just as you know the official story is impossible. You'll never admit it, but the truth is the truth. If you reply to this post at all you'll huff and puff and you might go on a long rant, but you won't really say anything, because you know there is nothing to say.

 

[beachnut]

You reek of desperation. So that's your argument, "Haha there's no physical evidence" Some argument. Well besides the fact that there probably is some steel and other things in existence, what about the Iron rich spheres? You know full well, besides a call to magic, there is no "natural" explanation for them. Just as you know the official story is impossible. You'll never admit it, but the truth is the truth. If you reply to this post at all you'll huff and puff and you might go on a long rant, but you won't really say anything, because you know there is nothing to say.

Iron rich sphere are everywhere. No magic, burning paint, diesel engines, fire, burning office contents.

19 terrorists did 911, figured out 10 years ago. The failure of WTC 7 is due to fire. To make a claim on the probable cause of collapse will take 4 to 6 years of hard work at engineering school. Why have you not taken the past 10 years to do the work?

Why argue with NIST's probable cause, it is easy to publish your probable cause of collapse. I have seen thoughtful probable cause of collapse different from NIST, but with the same fire did it big picture.

Why attack other posters when you need to present your probable cause backed with evidence and 1000 pages of supporting work, diagrams, physics, engineering stuff, equations, etc. Where is your work?

When you present no work, the " reek of desperation" is from you. Roll out your big guns. Ignore NIST's probable cause, explain your cause. Is fire a factor in your probable collapse sequence?

 

[RedIbis]

Correct. The Twoofies shouldn't be crying. They should accept reality as it is: The physical evidence that they expect simply does not exist. Face it. No such physical evidence, for any collapse theory of WTC 7, is ever going to appear. Why? Well Twoofies know it already: It has been shipped and recycled!

So why should anyone expect "a theory to be based on physical evidence" when you already know such physical evidence does not, and will never, exist? This very demand is the crying that Twoofies such as you actually engage in.



Now suppose you get your new investigation. Suppose this new investigation comes up with an explanation that totally satisfies your wishes (Cheney asked Bush to order 1,000 tons of super-duper-nano-hush-a-booms; Larry Silverstein covered the insurance thing; ranking FDNY and NYPD provided cover; Loiseaux, Giuliani and Daniel Nigro personally commanded the army of midgets that planted all the hush-a-booms; Nigro called Silverstein, Silverstein said "pull it" and made out like bandid, WTC 7 fell into its footprint from explosive cutting of the core... lalalalala). Happy now? Yes? But wait - WHERE IS THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE??



So tell me, RedIbis: Will there ever be a theory better than NIST's in the regard that it will be supported by the sort physical evidence you are crying for? Yes, or No, RedIbis?



(dodge coming in 10 ... 9 ... 8 ...)

You chose to ignore this when I responded to this same tack many pages ago in this very thread. WPI studied WTC 7 steel so NIST could have accessed it if they wanted.

 

[LSSBB]

You reek of desperation. So that's your argument, "Haha there's no physical evidence" Some argument. Well besides the fact that there probably is some steel and other things in existence, what about the Iron rich spheres? You know full well, besides a call to magic, there is no "natural" explanation for them. Just as you know the official story is impossible. You'll never admit it, but the truth is the truth. If you reply to this post at all you'll huff and puff and you might go on a long rant, but you won't really say anything, because you know there is nothing to say.

We did a whole thread on the iron rich spheres. Check from post 2026 on back (before the whole "Java Man" exercise).

 

[tfk]

Finally, ergo says something that is both observant & true.

I like Enik, but it appears that whole forum has been drinking the Kool-Aid.

Yup. Anyone with any common sense or real technical ability is driven off by the twue twoof believers.

They're kidding themselves into thinking they're doing professional analyses.

Bingo!!

None of them use their real names.

Use, or lack of use, of real names is irrelevant.

What is relevant is the quality of the analysis. In this respect, none of them provide anything of value.

Look at SanderO's "conceptually possible!" explanation of the squibs in the Twin Towers.

SanderO's work doesn't support or detract from enik's.

Each one stands alone, and should be judged on its own.

I would guess that Enik's experiment shows that, using NIST's inputs and NIST's limited assumptions, he was able to replicate NIST's results.

Your guess is biased, uninformed and irrelevant.

 

[ozeco41]

I will look forward to your FEA when you return.

It is sad that you take the same defensive evasion as Tony. Don't make the mistake of focussing so closely on the clever details that you lose the context of your claim.

The concern with Tony's claims are of two types - both clearly defined earlier in this thread:
1) The technical one is that he assumes that only the beams and girder were affected by temperature - the assumption that you copied in your first FEA effort. The problem is nothing to do with people showing how clever they are at using FEA - because if the boundary parameters are wrong the FEA is useless.

And no matter who does the FEA it will remain useless. I am too old to be competent in FEA BUT I am right on the engineering setting so don't waste time trying to play smart with me by challenging me to repeat your error. The problem lies in poor management of engineering application - keeping the "focussed on detail" technicians on track and stopping them losing the plot which is the problem I identified with Tony's claim and the possible situation I have alluded to with your latest effort.

BTW I doubt that the context for the "girder walk off" can be specified in sufficient detail to allow anyone to guarantee any analysis. That is a separate issue. Another trap which Tony sets and you need to avoid is ambiguity of objective. Are you operating within NIST assumptions to prove NIST either right or wrong within their assumptions? Or are you trying to explain what happened? There will be no joy in getting bits of those two separate arguments mixed as if they can be part of the same whole picture.

2) Tony's second error was more fundamental in that he has not legitimately identified his claim and supported it in logic and burden of proof. Not relevant at this stage.

 

[ozeco41]

I am not taking Enik's work as anything now - I simply haven't looked closely at it, and, frankly, I don't think I would understand much of it enough to offer any criticism. I really posted this to draw the attention of the few here with some engineering competence to his work. I think it is great and refreshing that someone puts in this sort of effort....

Enik's FEA work is impressive. I would expect it to be correct within the context of boundary assumptions. It is the boundary assumptions I am not sure about at this stage. There can be no doubt that Tony S's boundary assumptions were not supported. Enik has gone a bit broader in the physical boundary but still using the same temperature assumptions. (And there are other factors.)

...SanderO asks, in effect, if Enik got the same result as NIST because he used the same input; and thus implicitly questions the validity of his assumptions. Which is an obvious question to ask.

I suspect that NIST got the same answer that reality found similarly due, in part, to the wrong reasons. My take on NIST's analysis is not so much that their work "proves" how the historical WTC7 building collapse started, but that a structure like WTC7 is indeed vulnerable to collapse when the heat of fires expands long steel spans. This finding alone, even without an actual collapse of the actual building as motivation, would justify changes to building codes. Does the NIST-scenario describe in all relevant detail how the actual collapse took place? I think we can't know this absent the physical evidence that truther like to cry over. At the same time, many a truther theory could not be validated, for the same reason....

Far too much for me to comment on at this time and my current location.

...But at least NIST, and Enik, demonstrate that girder-walk off is a possibility ## that requires no assumption of additional, unproven entities such as explosives and incendiaries....

...there are several logical links missing there "##"

...Enjoy your vacation!

Will do --- an doing.

 

[achimspok]

... You can't explain what was measured at free-fall, or what it means. ...

Congratulations for the 18000 posts.

...but don't forget, NIST measured inward bowing of the parapet wall as "slow down stage 1" and explained that stage by the time for buckling columns prior to stage 2 "freefall".

Just a little failure due to perspective of camera 3 (West St) - the real stage 1 was shorter than you can say BANG!
;-)

 

[uglypig]

You are wrong. NIST is wrong. Stage 1 took two entire minutes. Starting with some very bad collapse towards the east side and cont. with ever-increasing leaning. By the time of the collapse the whole core was in incredible tension -> it snapped like a spring -> the freefall collapse of west penthouse. Yes, I know.

 

[waypastvne]

Hey achimspok, I have a photo for you

Close up from that photo

It's in the right place.

It is the right size.

It is the right shape.

It is the right color.

What do you think ?

Yes or No ?

(Sorry to every one else for being off topic)

 

[tfk]

achimspok & uglypig,

This is not the place to discuss your claims about Stage 1 collapse.

I set up a new thread called "NIST blew WTC7 Stage 1 analysis" for you.

Why don't you make your arguments over in that thread.


tk

 

[000063]

You chose to ignore this when I responded to this same tack many pages ago in this very thread. WPI studied WTC 7 steel so NIST could have accessed it if they wanted.

Ah, yes, the "I already answered this" dodge, combined with the "evidence could've been altered so that's why there isn't any" chestnut. A fine vintage.

 

[achimspok]

It's in the right place.

It is the right size.

It is the right shape.

It is the right color.

What do you think ?

Yes or No ?

(Sorry to every one else for being off topic)

I would say no.

It's too big.

It's not really green.

It's behind tower 2 (wrong plane or wind)

it's below heavier debris (probably from UA 175)

1) If you would have find it, would you have taken the entire way around the complex to Barclay St just to give it to some police man? There where loads of police man all around the towers.

2) I clearly miss all the other undamaged "paper stuff" and tiny little undamaged things from pockets and suitcases because everyone around here KNOWS it should be there, right? That passport wasn't some kind of millenium coincidence!

3) I still have no clue, why Al Qaeda should use Tippex to fake away arabic stamps in a faked passport and btw in the "same fraudulent manner" like in the (never publicly shown) Alomari fake-passport that was allegedly found in the Atta suitcases (just about 3 years after 9/11).

So, no - it's not the unburnt Suquami passport. It's just a piece of metal from UA175.

(Sorry to every one else for being off topic)

 

[achimspok]

achimspok & uglypig,

This is not the place to discuss your claims about Stage 1 collapse.

I set up a new thread called "NIST blew WTC7 Stage 1 analysis" for you.

Why don't you make your arguments over in that thread.


tk

Sorry, Beachnut adressed the free fall and what it meant.
Btw. the girder walk-off between column 79 and 44 should have something to do with it IF the girder walked off.

According to McGratton (NIST)
- was the last visible evidence for fires on the 12th floor from about 4:45pm
- the fires on floors 11,12,13 followed similar pattern with a slight offset in time of about 15-30 minutes
- the last evidence for any fire east of column 47 (12th floor) was taken at 3:13pm
- the fire at floor 7 never reached the NE corner
- the fire at floor 8 passed the NE corner at about 4:30 and burnt there for may be 20 minutes
- the fire at floor 9 reached that area right in time for the total collapse
- no fire at floor 10

Given a 3 hours fire resistance rating
- at wich time all the girders expanded enough to walk-off???

Column 79 reached about 150°C. According to NIST, we need 5 floors of unsupported column lenght to let it buckle.

 

[achimspok]

You are wrong. NIST is wrong. Stage 1 took two entire minutes. Starting with some very bad collapse towards the east side and cont. with ever-increasing leaning. By the time of the collapse the whole core was in incredible tension -> it snapped like a spring -> the freefall collapse of west penthouse. Yes, I know.

Sounds interesting? ...any link?

 

[enik]

It is sad that you take the same defensive evasion as Tony...

It is sad that you prefer to discuss the FEA in this forum rather than the forum the analysis resides and you so proudly claim to be a member. It is also sad that your focus is comparing people rather than focusing on an actual analysis, one that supports the NIST and one I could have easily not displayed. You were more than welcomed to offer or change any NIST assumptions, boundary conditions, or “other factors”. You still can, the model hasn’t gone anywhere.

 

[RedIbis]

Ah, yes, the "I already answered this" dodge, combined with the "evidence could've been altered so that's why there isn't any" chestnut. A fine vintage.

That's a fascinating way to misinterpret what I wrote, especially since I'm saying that there was physical evidence if NIST bothered to request it.

 

[000063]

I apologize.

Larry, bandit, etc.

 

[ozeco41]

... It is also sad that your focus is comparing people rather than focusing on an actual analysis, one that supports the NIST and one I could have easily not displayed....

Please read my post and either respond to what I did say OR remain silent...ON BOTH THOSE ISSUES because you misrepresent me on both.

To save other members reading back the misrepresentations are:
1) I did not compare people - I compared the assumptions Enik adopted with the assumptions Tony S used - said assumptions having been shown to be false in this thread and in a lot of detail; AND
2) I acknowledged that Enik's second attempt supported NIST BUT I stated that I was not yet convinced that his reasoning was correct. The specific concern I expressed being that he could be right for wrong reasons.

Enik is wrong on "1)" an has avoided responding to "2)"

... You were more than welcomed to offer or change any NIST assumptions, boundary conditions, or “other factors”. You still can, the model hasn’t gone anywhere.

Is that how you respond to simple comments and advice which are intended to be helpful?

 

[enik]

And I still wait for your RIGHT assumptions, boundary conditions, or other factors. Maybe I missed them in a previous post. Can you please list them out?

Not convinced my reasoning is correct. Right for the wrong reasons. Care to be more specific?