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

[tmd2_1]

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

What you wrote makes absolutely no sense. This engineer was able to predict something that never happened before or since. Remember everyone was shocked to see the towers come down, let alone a building that wasn't even hit by a plane. You "predicting" that a store being robbed in a high crime area isn't even close to being a good analogy. What may be a little more accurate is you predicting a store that's in a good neighborhood, been in business many years, and never been robbed, and then is robbed. You also accurately predict the people who did it and who never had been in the slightest bit of trouble. If these circumstances occur then yes I would have a very strong suspicion you were involved.

 

[Myriad]

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

Thanks; that little gem will go nicely in my collection of Truther quotes.

The question is, have you perceived the causal connection between that kind of response, and the lack of any effect of your claims, theories, accusations, posts, and "books," on anything at all?

You're good a perceiving things, but sorting historical causality from what you perceive has been a bit of an issue, so perhaps not.

Perhaps the simplest way to convey it is that substance is a pre-requisite for traction, and if your claims had any substance, you would not find it necessary to issue petulant non-substantive responses.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[NoahFence]

It should have been a part of any real investigation into the unprecedented collapse of WTC 7 to talk to someone who had predicted it five hours beforehand.

How would this mystery engineer have been able to predict a natural collapse when the NIST natural collapse story says the circumstances didn't come together for the collapse until minutes before its occurrence?

Anyone who supports the present NIST story should be wondering how this guy knew five hours beforehand.

Pissing and moaning about WTC 7 is like watching a house burn down, then only focusing on the bathroom door coming off its hinges. I mean, it collapsed. Who gives a ******

 

[Myriad]

What you wrote makes absolutely no sense. This engineer was able to predict something that never happened before or since. Remember everyone was shocked to see the towers come down, let alone a building that wasn't even hit by a plane.

Are you suggesting the engineer who predicted WTC7's collapse was unaware that the towers had collapsed hours earlier? Or that he should have been incapable of predicting something that had just happened twice already that day, because it had never happened before?

A coherent claim that doesn't contradict itself in the very next sentence might help out a bit, in the future, when attempting to declare what does and does not make sense.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[tmd2_1]

Are you suggesting the engineer who predicted WTC7's collapse was unaware that the towers had collapsed hours earlier? Or that he should have been incapable of predicting something that had just happened twice already that day, because it had never happened before?

A coherent claim that doesn't contradict itself in the very next sentence might help out a bit, in the future, when attempting to declare what does and does not make sense.

Respectfully,
Myriad

I thought it was clear but I'll try again. This engineer predicted something that has never happened before or since, namely a steel skyscraper collapsing due to fire. I was saying everyone was shocked to see the towers come down. I mean regular people and technical folks a like. So it's even a greater leap of faith to predict a building that wasn't even hit by a plane to collapse. Hence why I said your analogy wasn't even close to being a good one, and gave a much better one.

 

[pgimeno]

Hayden will not reveal the name of this engineer.

The above claim is not found at the video you linked. Please correct me if I'm wrong, or provide a source for the assertion.

I'm interested in the response too. Senenmut?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

What you wrote makes absolutely no sense. This engineer was able to predict something that never happened before or since. Remember everyone was shocked to see the towers come down, let alone a building that wasn't even hit by a plane. You "predicting" that a store being robbed in a high crime area isn't even close to being a good analogy. What may be a little more accurate is you predicting a store that's in a good neighborhood, been in business many years, and never been robbed, and then is robbed. You also accurately predict the people who did it and who never had been in the slightest bit of trouble. If these circumstances occur then yes I would have a very strong suspicion you were involved.

tmd2, I think the analogy you gave here is much more fitting than the one Myriad initially gave, since it would also be an unprecedented event that was being predicted.

However, maybe I was a little too hard on Myriad as he did provide the initial grist for you to work with here.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I thought it was clear but I'll try again. This engineer predicted something that has never happened before or since, namely a steel skyscraper collapsing due to fire. I was saying everyone was shocked to see the towers come down. I mean regular people and technical folks a like. So it's even a greater leap of faith to predict a building that wasn't even hit by a plane to collapse. Hence why I said your analogy wasn't even close to being a good one, and gave a much better one.

I've yet to work with a structural engineer that was at all surprised that the buildings came down. The only thing any of them have found surprising was how long the buildings stood.

 

[pgimeno]

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.

It has been "shown otherwise" several times in this thread already.

I thought it was clear but I'll try again. This engineer predicted something that has never happened before or since, namely a steel skyscraper collapsing due to fire. I was saying everyone was shocked to see the towers come down. I mean regular people and technical folks a like. So it's even a greater leap of faith to predict a building that wasn't even hit by a plane to collapse. Hence why I said your analogy wasn't even close to being a good one, and gave a much better one.

I've read at least three quotes by Spanish architects and engineers who predicted the collapse of the towers before it happened.

One of them added no extra details. From the other two, one said that they made drawings of how the towers would fail and collapse, and then it happened exactly like that, and they joked with needing to hide the drawings before the FBI found out.

The last one told us that they were in the architecture faculty watching the TV, and they were making bets about how long it would take for them to fall. Apparently the guy who tells the story estimated about one hour. I know, it's insensitive. But not surprising at all to many people with technical background.

The quotations in Spanish:

"Cuando vi que las torres seguían ardiendo, pensé que era irremediable que se cayeran", recuerda el arquitecto Ricardo Aroca. El acero puede llegar hasta los 500 grados antes de perder el coeficiente de seguridad, pero aguanta bajo un incendio durante dos horas si está bien protegido por hormigón. Pero el hormigón es frágil. "Aquí lo que pasa es que la protección debió de quedar muy dañada con el impacto", cree Aroca.
​

Diario de Navarra, September 13 2001. http://www.diariodenavarra.es/decim...internacional/las-torres-gemelas-cayeron-peso

PD2: Por cierto, soy arquitecto. Nunca he creído en la teoría del derribo de la WTC7, ni en teorías extrañas sobre el derrumbe de las torres gemelas. También vi en directo todo el atentado, justo cuando me encontraba reunido con varios compañeros (otros tres arquitectos y un ingeniero). Recuerdo que un buen rato antes de caer la primera torre, los cinco que allí estábamos reunidos (ya no encima de los planos, sino frente al televisor) coincidíamos en lo mismo: “Se van a caer las dos torres como si fueran de cartón, como un castillo de naipes”. El ingeniero no conocía la estructura de las torres, pero los arquitectos que allí estábamos sí. Los cuatro habíamos viajado en distintos momentos a NY, y los cuatro habíamos visitado las torres gemelas. Los cuatro conocíamos el novedoso sistema estructural que soportaba ambos rascacielos. Lo habíamos visto docenas de veces en revistas técnicas y de diseño, y también lo habíamos visto insitu, en NY... Aún guardo los dibujos que hicimos para explicarnos entre nosotros cómo iban a caer las torres... Y menos de media hora después, cayó la primera torre tal cual lo habíamos imaginado. Tal cual. Luego la segunda. Tal cual. Recuerdo a un compañero haciendo una broma sobre esos dibujos que acabábamos de hacer: “Habrá que quemarlos (los dibujos), porque como algún día los encuentre el FBI, vamos a tener problemas”.
​

http://natsufan.livejournal.com/35491.html#t875683

Yo vi la movida en directo en la Escuela de Arquitectura de A Coruña. Pues bien, estábamos haciendo apuestas acerca de cuánto duraría cada torre cuando aún no había caído ninguna. Yo no les daba más de una hora, así, a ojímetro. No me equivoqué mucho.​

http://m.forocoches.com/foro/showthread.php?p=41256085#post_message_41256085

 

[Myriad]

I thought it was clear but I'll try again. This engineer predicted something that has never happened before or since, namely a steel skyscraper collapsing due to fire.

Yes, and I pointed out that when the engineer predicted it, it was not something that had never happened before, because it had just happened twice before.

I was saying everyone was shocked to see the towers come down. I mean regular people and technical folks a like. So it's even a greater leap of faith to predict a building that wasn't even hit by a plane to collapse.

That would indeed be a tremendous leap of faith -- unless the engineer were capable of comprehending the role of the fires in the collapses of the towers. I wonder if an engineer employed by the FDNY to evaluate the structural safety of fire scenes could possibly be capable of appreciating the effects and importance of fire. It's hard to believe, I know. But one extremely subtle clue that his keen analytical mind just might have picked up on was that the towers did not collapse immediately upon being hit by planes, but did so later after having been on fire.

And I recall just about no one being shocked when WTC7 collapsed. (Startled, sure, because no one knew what moment the collapse would happen.) The first responders on the scene even seemed to expect it, what with having withdrawn from the area despite having very good personal reasons for wanting to stay. Come to think of it, I wonder why none of them told that engineer, "No way that building's coming down. It wasn't hit by a plane, dumbass! I'm ordering my company to stay in the danger zone and continue to try to save the lives of brothers we think are trapped in there." Could it be that they weren't idiots?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[beachnut]

Do you ever plan on showing anything mathematically?

Does Tony plan on publishing or showing where his completed work is?

 

[GlennB]

I thought it was clear but I'll try again. This engineer predicted something that has never happened before or since, namely a steel skyscraper collapsing due to fire. I was saying everyone was shocked to see the towers come down. I mean regular people and technical folks a like. So it's even a greater leap of faith to predict a building that wasn't even hit by a plane to collapse.

And yet a young New Yorker filming from an apartment in the N is recorded telling his friend "I told you that sucker was gonna go".

tmd2_1, structural steel is fireproofed for a reason. What do you suppose that reason is?

 

[Oystein]

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.

Awww that lame, silly, stupid Twoofer rhetoric *yawn*

 

[Oystein]

What you certainly can't do is

- covertly demolish an enormous building

Good thing is: No one did. It's all in your imagination.

by having it come down in a symmetric way

Can you explain what that even means? How is the WTC collapse "symmetric", in other words, how would you expect it to llok like if it weren't symmetric? Symmetry is a mathematical concept, and should be described (its presence be shown) describing the event in math terms. Just claiming "symmetry" is technobabble to impress the gullible.

Next up, you need to show that "symmetry" is a property that reliably helps to distinguish intentional from natural collapses. Has anyone even begun to show this?

in full freefall for 8 stories to generate enough momentum to do the job

Nonsense. Acceleration needs not be g and needs not be sustained over 8 stories to generate enough momentum. That's exactly where Bazant comes in handy: You only need the equivalent of a few feet of g - twice as long at half g would suffice as well.

So how does this observation support your claims? Answer: It doesn't. This is not how buildings are CDed! Even David Chandler has said so in one of his videos: That he has not seen an actual CD that showed this behaviour.
It seems to be peculiar to the design WTC7, and not an indication of the method of collapse initiation.

- provide none of the physical evidence to investigators

A problem for your theory as much as for NIST's. Are you prepared to defend your theory, or any theory that a "new and independent investation" might come up with, against this accusation that it is not supported by physical evidence? Or aren't you really secretly happy that you can spin any silly theory, because physical evidence is elusive?

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

I think you are seriously misrepresenting the situation

- 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"

So?

with a report containing impossibilities

So YOU say.

and have everyone believe it.

The faith peddlers are the ones that you support. You make people believe near-g means something nefarious, symmetry means something nefarious, or that you can somehow deal better with the scarcity of physical evidence.
All these beliefs are false.

 

[Sunstealer]

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.

I've told you, he cast animal bones on the floor and interpreted the pattern they fell in. He confirmed this by ringing "1-800-tell my fortune" and they told him the same thing.

Us engineers don't use all the skills and knowledge we've built up over years to predict things. Hell no, that's a silly method, instead we use things like animal bones. I'm experimenting with a ouija board now because I believe that is more accurate than tea leaves.

It's surprising how accurate you can be with such a method - far better than using maths, knowledge and science.

 

[Clayton Moore]

I've yet to work with a structural engineer that was at all surprised that the buildings came down. The only thing any of them have found surprising was how long the buildings stood.

 

[twinstead]

That's right truthers. After over a decade, keep debating your inside job "theories" on relatively obscure internet forums. God forbid you actually try to convince somebody who can DO something about it.

 

[000063]

...

"The FFs knew the building was going to collapse. They couldn't have known that unless the CDers told them so." [As if someone engaged in such a massive, treasonous conspiracy is going to tell a bunch of people about it as it is happening.]

Absolutely brain-dead.

He actually said that? Wow.

So now you are saying the terrorists of 911 had something to do with the planning for WTC 7's demise concerning how the east penthouse fell.
...

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.

Not as a reason for, a sign of. How does the CD theory explain such a bulge?

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.

NIST says the part of the building which they measured was at roughly free fall speed for the middle of three periods, both of which were slower than FFA.

 

[000063]

What you certainly can't do is

- covertly demolish an enormous building by having it come down in a symmetric way

No.

in full freefall for 8 stories

No.

to generate enough momentum to do the job

No.

- provide none of the physical evidence to investigators

No.

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

Yes.

- and then claim that it was a first of its kind in history

How often are buildings struck by the collapse of other skyscrapers that collapsed after a plane flew into them?

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.

Of course not. There are always going to be some crazy people.

 

[000063]

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.

Impossibilities like how the conspirators knowing how to plant the charges in 7 to avoid damage to them when WTC 1 collapsed? I've only ever seen one truther willing to claim anything about the matter, but Clayton Moore was remarkably vague on the specifics. He muttered something about supercomputers and the moon landings and changed the subject.

NIST took seven years to investigate precisely what happened to 7. It's the difference between knowing a shot to the chest killed someone and an autopsy to know precisely what the bullet damaged.

tmd2, I think the analogy you gave here is much more fitting than the one Myriad initially gave, since it would also be an unprecedented event that was being predicted.

However, maybe I was a little too hard on Myriad as he did provide the initial grist for you to work with here.

Except that, as Myriad pointed out, two other steel-framed skyscrapers had collapsed after fire and damage that same day. In fact, that's what set 7 on fire. In Myriad's analogy, few people would leave their door unlocked and open in a high risk 'hood.

But if you want to talk precedent, how many buildings over 30 stories have ever been subject to controlled demolition? How many of them were on fire when this CD occurred? How many had planes crash into them? How many had firefighters conspiring to conceal the murder of 3000 civilians and 300 of their brothers? You will not answer these questions.