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

[DGM]

It is to anyone I know with any technical background who has looked at it, is told NIST admits it was in free fall acceleration for 8 stories, but that the present U.S. government explanation is that it came down due to fire.

Why would they be told this? (bold) You know it's not true.

 

[tsig]

No it isn't that easy. Ozeco, and anyone who agrees with him, needs to provide the actual mechanisms for what he is claiming. Just saying the whole building was swaying or was on fire and that this produced forces and mechanics supporting what you are saying is farcical. You can give rough estimates but you need to be specific about how certain forces would have developed and the mechanics that would have been involved to cause column to column relationship changes.

Where specifically were the explosives placed Tony?

 

[Sunstealer]

Okay, I would settle for Peter Hayden and this mystery engineer being interviewed to hear what they have to say. You should agree that we need to know how he guessed so well.

Well it's obvious; he did what all of us engineers do and consulted a random mechanism and interpreted the findings.

Some engineers scatter animal bones and then interpret the pattern to make predictions and decisions, others have crystal balls or use tarot cards. I, being English, prefer a nice cup of tea and then look at the tea leaves in the bottom of a cup.

How do you not know that we do this? It's taught in all schools of engineering the world over.

Engineers make guestimates everyday, it's what we do, and it's based on our experience of the field we are in. There is nothing suspicious about this.

 

[tsig]

Good thought, but I doubt there was any data recorded and kept. It is incredible that people like Peter Hayden haven't been forced to reveal this mystery engineer's name under oath.

I get a kick out of apologist's who try to use "the bulge" as a reason for the building coming down. It is incredible that they would consider that even if there was a bulge in a wall on one side of a football field size building, that it would have any basis for explaining the complete symmetric freefall collapse for over 100 feet of that building.

You don't think that if the entire supporting structure of a building is compromised the building will collapse?

ETA: You don't think a football sized bulge indites serious structural damage.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Why would they be told this? (bold) You know it's not true.

What do you mean it isn't true?

NIST shows the freefall acceleration right in their velocity chart.

The velocity equation in the NIST chart on page 603 of NCSTAR 1-9 says

v(t) = -44.773 + 32.196t

The 32.196 is the acceleration in the equation. Do I have to explain that?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You don't think that if the entire supporting structure of a building is compromised the building will collapse?

ETA: You don't think a football sized bulge indites (I think you meant indicates here) serious structural damage.

You can't be serious. This is getting pathetic. All we ever heard in a completely subjective way was something about a bulge on the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, which is the complete opposite corner from where NIST says the collapse initiated. We have never seen any data on "the bulge" indicating it's size or anything like that, and NIST didn't even include figures on it in their report, yet you are now growing it to a football field size.

I really do have to do this here

 

[tsig]

Good thought, but I doubt there was any data recorded and kept. It is incredible that people like Peter Hayden haven't been forced to reveal this mystery engineer's name under oath.

I get a kick out of apologist's who try to use "the bulge" as a reason for the building coming down. It is incredible that they would consider that even if there was a bulge in a wall on one side of a football field size building, that it would have any basis for explaining the complete symmetric freefall collapse for over 100 feet of that building.

You don't think that if the entire supporting structure of a building is compromised the building will collapse?

ETA: You don't think a football sized bulge indites serious structural damage.

You can't be serious. This is getting pathetic. All we ever heard in a completely subjective way was something about a bulge on the southwest corner which is the complete opposite side from where NIST says the collapse initiated. We have never seen any data on it indicating it's size or anything like that, and NIST didn't even include figures on it in their report, yet you are now growing it to a football field size.

I really do have to do this here

You mentioned the football field sized bulge so apparently you find your own posts laughable.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You mentioned the football field sized bulge so apparently you find your own posts laughable.

It is quite a stretch to say I was implying that the bulge was a football field in size. I was referring to the plan area of WTC 7 when I used the football field analogy.

I do think that is clear in the sentence you highlighted and if I am not mistaken you are a regular here and should have known the football field analogy was about the building's plan. You would also probably know that the bulge was on the southwest corner. So what it looks like is you jumped at an opportunity to take something out of context. So the laughing dog wasn't inappropriate for your poor behavior. Don't be cruel yourself and you will be treated likewise.

 

[ozeco41]

...Your supposition that there would be effects here that would affect the final outcome concerning the girder between the columns is not realistic and unsupported...

Tony I have expended my patience with your lack of reading comprehension OR deliberate pretence of obtuseness.

Once again you misrepresent the situation in the debate between us.

MY "supposition" is not about those effects. My claim is that you have not met your obligation to support YOUR claim and that your claim therefore is "unproven" or any other term you may prefer.

Very simply put my position is that you have assumed no such effect, that your claim of NIST failure fails without support of YOUR assumption. The status of YOUR claim is unsupported/not made out/ unproven. Unless and until you prove/support/make out YOUR assumption your claim fails.

Stop trying to reframe the burden of proof as if it is my claim under discussion between us. I will not fall for the evasive trickery.

 

[tmd2_1]

Tony I have expended my patience with your lack of reading comprehension OR deliberate pretence of obtuseness.

Once again you misrepresent the situation in the debate between us.

MY "supposition" is not about those effects. My claim is that you have not met your obligation to support YOUR claim and that your claim therefore is "unproven" or any other term you may prefer.

Very simply put my position is that you have assumed no such effect, that your claim of NIST failure fails without support of YOUR assumption. The status of YOUR claim is unsupported/not made out/ unproven. Unless and until you prove/support/make out YOUR assumption your claim fails.

Stop trying to reframe the burden of proof as if it is my claim under discussion between us. I will not fall for the evasive trickery.

Do you ever plan on showing anything mathematically? I've seen Tony and others work and can find nothing wrong with it. It's amazing you accuse Tony and others of being evasive, and yet all you do is make claims and never even attempt to back it up. I mean making claims is easy, I can say the theory of gravity is incorrect, but I better have a whole lot to back it up. This is essentially what you are doing. Why don't you start by answering Tony's question "When you show how much force the girder would have to apply to column 79 for the displacement you claim and how the girder would be able to do that without buckling then we can talk." Please do it mathematically.

 

[tmd2_1]

It is to anyone I know with any technical background who has looked at it, is told NIST admits it was in free fall acceleration for 8 stories, but that the present U.S. government explanation is that it came down due to fire.

One other thing I'd like to point out is that it took NIST 7 or so years to come up with an explanation for WTC 7. Their theory was preposterous to begin with and now until shown otherwise is proven impossible. Yet this "engineer" knew 5 hours before hand this building was going to come down. That really should have been the extent of NIST's investigation, go and find this engineer and ask what he based this guess on. Yet still coming on 11 years and no one can explain what happened.

Truth be told, the investigation could be as simple as just "asking" that engineer. The problem is many will not like the answer.

 

[twinstead]

One other thing I'd like to point out is that it took NIST 7 or so years to come up with an explanation for WTC 7. Their theory was preposterous to begin with and now until shown otherwise is proven impossible. Yet this "engineer" knew 5 hours before hand this building was going to come down. That really should have been the extent of NIST's investigation, go and find this engineer and ask what he based this guess on. Yet still coming on 11 years and no one can explain what happened.

Truth be told, the investigation could be as simple as just "asking" that engineer. The problem is many will not like the answer.

You can't just say stuff like this and make it be true

 

[triforcharity]

One other thing I'd like to point out is that it took NIST 7 or so years to come up with an explanation for WTC 7. Their theory was preposterous to begin with and now until shown otherwise is proven impossible. Yet this "engineer" knew 5 hours before hand this building was going to come down. That really should have been the extent of NIST's investigation, go and find this engineer and ask what he based this guess on. Yet still coming on 11 years and no one can explain what happened.

Truth be told, the investigation could be as simple as just "asking" that engineer. The problem is many will not like the answer.

The "problem" is mythical, and made up only in you and Tony's minds.

He did not predict the exact cause of the collapse. He looked at the overall picture and determined that with time, it would collapse.

He looked at the data gathered from the transit, the information about the fire, the design of the building, the bulge that developed, the sounds that the building was making, etc. and made an EDUCATED decision. In fact, one firefighter predicted that the building would collapse also.

The fact that the unknown (to us) engineer said it would collapse, means nothing. He did NOT predict thermal expansion and contraction, lateral loss of support, etc. did he?

Nope. He said "It's coming down, it's just a matter of time".

Which, consequently was right. Better than you or Tony have done, and he most likely did it without the aid of the internet.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You can't just say stuff like this and make it be true

What you certainly can't do is

- covertly demolish an enormous building by having it come down in a symmetric way in full freefall for 8 stories to generate enough momentum to do the job

- provide none of the physical evidence to investigators

- take seven years to investigate it while saying you are having trouble getting a handle on it

- and then claim that it was a first of its kind in history by saying "Oh, it was the fires in it that caused it to fall that way" with a report containing
impossibilities

and have everyone believe it.

 

[ozeco41]

...Please do it mathematically.

Don't be so ridiculous. Tony's error that I have clearly identified and explicitly supported by proof is an error of logic. I have left it to others - principally tfk - to explain the errors in his mathematics and/or engineering technical detail.

Unless you really want the proof of that gross error of logic to be in the form of symbolic logic your suggestion is merely childish rubbish.

AND, since I have already used plain English language and words to spell out my explanation of Tony's error with explicit clarity, putting it into symbolic logic would only tend to obscure the simple fact which is:

Tony has not completed his argument THEREFORE his claim fails.

Which part of that sentence do you not understand?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Don't be so ridiculous. Tony's error that I have clearly identified and explicitly supported by proof is an error of logic. I have left it to others - principally tfk - to explain the errors in his mathematics and/or engineering technical detail.

Unless you really want the proof of that gross error of logic to be in the form of symbolic logic your suggestion is merely childish rubbish.

AND, since I have already used plain English language and words to spell out my explanation of Tony's error with explicit clarity, putting it into symbolic logic would only tend to obscure the simple fact which is:

Tony has not completed his argument THEREFORE his claim fails.

Which part of that sentence do you not understand?

Ozeco, it would be best if you delineated in a precise way exactly what you think has to be done to show that the relationship between columns 79 and 44 would not have changed in a way which would have affected the outcome of what happened to the girder between them under the 13th floor.

Please don't retreat and say you have already done this. I am trying to get a clear read on exactly what you think is necessary.

 

[Myriad]

All the relevant circumstances came together long before "five hours beforehand." Those circumstances were: the building being empty, fires burning in the building, damage to the building exterior, the lack of water supply and manpower (due to higher priority demands on both) to fight the fire, the physical properties of the building's materials, and the design of the building.

NIST's task was to examine the contribution of the latter circumstance in the building's ultimate performance. They did that. The engineer on the scene might not have known the building's design in detail, but had additional information with which to estimate the time to failure: the ongoing progress of the fire insofar as externally observable, and the ongoing magnitude and trends of the observed leans and bulges. He or she called it admirably well, and that perceptive and accurate assessment might have saved numerous lives.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Blah, blah, blah. Give us a break from this kind of ninny nonsense.

Nope, sorry.

That kind of argument is all that is needed to refute the significance of your claims. That is why those claims have no import, which in turn is why they have no effect. (Certainly you must have perceived the latter by now, at least. You keep making claims, and nothing keeps happening. You have noticed that, right?)

The NIST report clearly implies the circumstances specific to the way they claim the collapse occurred came together in the minutes before the collapse. That is unless you think the girder walk-off and buckling of column 79 were happening for hours beforehand.

The relevant circumstances -- building constructed as it was, building on fire, building damaged, no firefighting -- existed for hours. The NIST report creates and tests a hypothesis for the details of how the global collapse most likely initiated when it did. Do they claim that had those specific members not been affected in that specific way, the building would not have collapsed due to further effects at some later time? They do not.

Here's a fun analogy. Imagine you own a small storefront in a city neighborhood known for having a high crime rate. One warm summer evening you leave the store but you neglect to lock it up. Not only is the entry door unlocked, but it is left wide open, easily visible. On seeing this, I predict that the store will be robbed before morning. Sure enough, at around 3:00 AM, thieves enter the store and clean it out.

You accuse me of not only knowing who the thieves were, but being in league with them, because how else could I have known that the store would be robbed that night? You demand an investigation, and the police do investigate the theft. They identify three suspects who were in the area and were later seen with goods from the store. The suspects have criminal records for, variously, car theft, drug offenses, shoplifting, and armed robbery, but not burglary. The police bring the suspects in for questioning and charge them in the crime; they're sentenced to a few months prison term each, after plea bargaining.

On hearing those results of the police investigation, you are now even more certain than before that I conspired with the thieves. You claim that to know the store was going to be robbed, I had to know that it would be exactly those three men who would rob it -- and none of them had ever even been convicted of burglary before, so how could I have known that unless I had foreknowledge of their plans?

Since many Truthers are poor at parsing analogies, let me map this one out for everyone:

The shop door being left swinging open <---> The building being damaged and on fire

The possibility the shop would be robbed <---> The possibility the building would collapse

The shop being in a known high crime neighborhood <---> The building being a form of steel structure known to be generally vulnerable to uncontrolled fire

The three suspects the police believe actually carried out the burglary <---> The specific members and elements involved in NIST's scenario for how the global collapse initiated

The suspects' criminal records (which did not actually include past burglaries) <---> The structurally destructive phenomena of creep, expansion, sagging, etc. known to be caused by fire (but had not actually caused a global collapse of a large steel building under those specific unusual circumstances before)

Me, predicting the shop would be robbed <---> An engineer predicting the building would collapse

You <---> You

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[tmd2_1]

The "problem" is mythical, and made up only in you and Tony's minds.

He did not predict the exact cause of the collapse. He looked at the overall picture and determined that with time, it would collapse.

He looked at the data gathered from the transit, the information about the fire, the design of the building, the bulge that developed, the sounds that the building was making, etc. and made an EDUCATED decision. In fact, one firefighter predicted that the building would collapse also.

The fact that the unknown (to us) engineer said it would collapse, means nothing. He did NOT predict thermal expansion and contraction, lateral loss of support, etc. did he?

Nope. He said "It's coming down, it's just a matter of time".

Which, consequently was right. Better than you or Tony have done, and he most likely did it without the aid of the internet.

Oh now I see it. This engineer, must have based his conclusion on the vast case history of fires bringing down steel frame skyscrapers. Makes perfect sense now. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[tmd2_1]

Ozeco, it would be best if you delineated in a precise way exactly what you think has to be done to show that the relationship between columns 79 and 44 would not have changed in a way which would have affected the outcome of what happened to the girder between them under the 13th floor.

Please don't retreat and say you have already done this. I am trying to get a clear read on exactly what you think is necessary.

I wouldn't hold my breath!

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Nope, sorry.

That kind of argument is all that is needed to refute the significance of your claims. That is why those claims have no import, which in turn is why they have no effect. (Certainly you must have perceived the latter by now, at least. You keep making claims, and nothing keeps happening. You have noticed that, right?)




The relevant circumstances -- building constructed as it was, building on fire, building damaged, no firefighting -- existed for hours. The NIST report creates and tests a hypothesis for the details of how the global collapse most likely initiated when it did. Do they claim that had those specific members not been affected in that specific way, the building would not have collapsed due to further effects at some later time? They do not.

Here's a fun analogy. Imagine you own a small storefront in a city neighborhood known for having a high crime rate. One warm summer evening you leave the store but you neglect to lock it up. Not only is the entry door unlocked, but it is left wide open, easily visible. On seeing this, I predict that the store will be robbed before morning. Sure enough, at around 3:00 AM, thieves enter the store and clean it out.

You accuse me of not only knowing who the thieves were, but being in league with them, because how else could I have known that the store would be robbed that night? You demand an investigation, and the police do investigate the theft. They identify three suspects who were in the area and were later seen with goods from the store. The suspects have criminal records for, variously, car theft, drug offenses, shoplifting, and armed robbery, but not burglary. The police bring the suspects in for questioning and charge them in the crime; they're sentenced to a few months prison term each, after plea bargaining.

On hearing those results of the police investigation, you are now even more certain than before that I conspired with the thieves. You claim that to know the store was going to be robbed, I had to know that it would be exactly those three men who would rob it -- and none of them had ever even been convicted of burglary before, so how could I have known that unless I had foreknowledge of their plans?

Since many Truthers are poor at parsing analogies, let me map this one out for everyone:

The shop door being left swinging open <---> The building being damaged and on fire

The possibility the shop would be robbed <---> The possibility the building would collapse

The shop being in a known high crime neighborhood <---> The building being a form of steel structure known to be generally vulnerable to uncontrolled fire

The three suspects the police believe actually carried out the burglary <---> The specific members and elements involved in NIST's scenario for how the global collapse initiated

The suspects' criminal records (which did not actually include past burglaries) <---> The structurally destructive phenomena of creep, expansion, sagging, etc. known to be caused by fire (but had not actually caused a global collapse of a large steel building under those specific unusual circumstances before)

Me, predicting the shop would be robbed <---> An engineer predicting the building would collapse

You <---> You

Respectfully,
Myriad

Okay, how about Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

It would be much better if you tell us how you think the collapse could have been foreseen five hours ahead of when it occurred, with observations that really mattered as to whether it would collapse or not. Bear in mind that NIST couldn't come up with an explanation for seven years and Shyam Sunder was quoted saying "We are having trouble getting a handle on Building 7", and in reality they haven't yet explained it as a natural collapse due to fire as their present explanation contains impossibilities.