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

[ozeco41]

I am slightly amused that no one has taken me up on this claim which I have posted several times:

...4) Whether NIST is wrong or not is irrelevant to any claim of CD.

...but it is merely an hypothetical at this stage because no-one has:
1) Shown that NIST is wrong; OR
2) Attempted to claim CD with any reasoned argument - whether or not it tries to rely on the false premise of "NIST was wrong."

So:

/THREAD ??

 

[carlitos]

/sub-forum

 

[Animal]

That's a great point. I guess I should've phrased it as "a mistake at worst", because the likelihood is that it is simply a transcription error. These are a lot more common than even a misunderstanding, and certainly far more probable than outright "fraud and lying".

Agreed.....my main "complaint" about the NIST documents is that they are poorly edited. With different author groups for different chapters, there should have been a little more effort in editing to keep things consistent......like "rock off" vs "walk off" C7 uses the summary version (1A) because it solely says walk off, rather than the detailed version (Vol 1 & 2) that hints several possible failure methods.....walk off, rock off, girder buckle, seat failure etc.
It could have been a combination of multiple failures, but the results end the same, column 79 ends up with no lateral support for several floors, fails, and the rest of the building fails in sympathy for column 79 and by gravity, but mostly by gravity.

 

[enik]

I am slightly amused that no one has taken me up on this claim which I have posted several times:
...but it is merely an hypothetical at this stage because no-one has:
1) Shown that NIST is wrong; OR
2) Attempted to claim CD with any reasoned argument - whether or not it tries to rely on the false premise of "NIST was wrong."

So:

/THREAD ??

At the risk of continuing this discussion off topic, let me ask just one question: Can FEA be used to model a controlled demoliton?

 

[DGM]

At the risk of continuing this discussion off topic, let me ask just one question: Can FEA be used to model a controlled demoliton?

Not to step on ozeco41's toes but, I can't see why not. One thing would be for sure, It would be unlikely to match the real world exactly.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Since both those are ridiculous bits of dishonesty why do we keep entertaining C7 (or Tony Sz) by wasting time responding?

2) Why do members persist in feeding obvious trolls. With two sub-answers possibly more:
____(a) They enjoy the fun of troll baiting.

Troll baiting is one way to describe it. I've called it "counter-trolling" in the past.

Remember Everyone Draw Mohammed Day? A response to radical islams demand that the entire world adhere to sharia law, it was probably the largest organized trolling attempt in internet history.

WTC7 is the holiest shrine in the twoofer cult. Like radical islamists and Mohammed, twoofers flip their lids in response to any suggestion that WTC7 was anything but pristine and shielded by divine providence from the mayhem and carnage that surrounded it... until the evil jews set the charges off.

Just look at how mad C7 gets over the proven leaning and severe physical damage to WTC7, or Tony S turning himself into an intellectual pretzel admitting that its not safe to be within 50 feet of an explosive charge but at the same time claiming they can't break windows.

These guys are mentally imbalanced and easily provoked... something they should consider when trying to troll us. They come in here huffing and puffing and trying to stir up the hornets nest, I see nothing wrong with poking them in their own soft spots and watching them @#$% their panties over it.

 

[ozeco41]

Agreed.....my main "complaint" about the NIST documents is that they are poorly edited. With different author groups for different chapters, there should have been a little more effort in editing to keep things consistent......like "rock off" vs "walk off".....

Yes - all of that and more...BUT

....C7 uses the summary version (1A) because it solely says walk off, rather than the detailed version (Vol 1 & 2) that hints several possible failure methods.....walk off, rock off, girder buckle, seat failure etc....

...which suits C7's most obvious objective which - in this thread - is to prevent discussion addressing the total argument about that sub-set of reality which is the NIST explanation of why the girder fell out thereby removing lateral support for Col79. (Did I get that right and succeed in not using the badly chosen words like "walk" and "rock" and the rest??? ) AND preventing discussion progressing is the most consistent of C7's overall tactics in this sub-forum - usually by keeping discussion going round in circles.

....It could have been a combination of multiple failures, but the results end the same, column 79 ends up with no lateral support for several floors, fails, and the rest of the building fails in sympathy for column 79 and by gravity, but mostly by gravity.

And that is the guts of the poor reasoning - it is a complex situation involving multiple factors and where it is most likely impossible that all the factors can be adequately defined or quantified.

Which of course is why I keep insisting that Tony Sz bears his burden of proof.

Reversing burden of proof is one of the most common bits of truther trickery. On most occasions there is not a lot of risk if the debunker side accepts reversed burden of proof because the weight of evidence is so strong in favour of the debunker side argument. Couple with that the AFAICS 100% record of no truther ever having made a sustainable argument so it is weighted massively the debunker's favour for the two simple reasons that we are usually right and the truther has not put forward an argument. We are assuredly right on the base facts such as "no CD" which is the underlying issue in this thread. Any wrongness on our side only being the result of poorly reasoned arguments. So we can usually accept "reversed burden of proof" and get away with the bad logic because we are on the winning side.

BUT that does not apply to Tony's claim on this specific topic of "Was NIST wrong about how the girder was removed?"

It does not apply because Tony has chosen to make a claim that he cannot prove. A claim that it is probably impossible for anyone to prove either way. And put the scientific "cop-out" disclaimers around my use of "impossible" if you need them.

BUT if "we" (or "I") accept burden of proof for this argument "we" take on that impossible task for ourselves. We give away the usual massive advantage of being on the side which is right.

Now Tony has tried to reverse that aspect also by attempting to get me to prove him wrong. I won't go down that track. I have shown conclusively that Tony has not proven his claim. I need do no more. It is not my fault that Tony chooses to argue a claim which cannot be proven. His mistake and I won't take on board his mistake. Nor will I fall for the associated false dichotomy of "I cannot prove Tony wrong THEREFORE he is right".

And the vehemence with which both Tony and his tag-team partner C7 abuse me and make dishonest evasive comments is evidence as to their lack of credibly as witnesses AND strong indications that they know they are on a loser.

 

[ozeco41]

At the risk of continuing this discussion off topic, let me ask just one question: Can FEA be used to model a controlled demoliton?

It is conceptually plausible. BUT I would always ask "Why do it?"

We have started and not finished this discussion on a previous occasion. The previous occasion we had a specific example. Let me now give the answer in a generic form.

FEA is a tool of analysis - in this setting a tool for engineering structural analysis. There are two main reasons for using a tool - whether engineering or any other profession. Those are:
1) Using it as a tool to assist solve a problem; OR
2) Using it for the fun/pleasure of playing with the tool.

The first one is my area of interest and the setting which I think you intended. So let's address that first. Why would anyone need to use FEA to model a controlled demolition? The two obvious reasons are either:
(A) Pre the event to help determine how a planned CD would work; OR
(B) post the event, to show why it actually happened the way it did.

I will focus on "(A)" - if you have a different scenario in mind respond and we can see whether it is of any value for us to pursue it.

Now the nature of planning a demolition is that it requires two critical aspects which are:

(1) Conceiving of a mechanism of collapse which the CD is intended to achieve. In the form such as "We take out the zxc causes the dfg to fold inwards/outwards allowing the hjk to drop..." That is big step #1 and it precedes any consideration of FEA as a tool.
(There is another point I may need to come back to. That mechanism needs a well defined boundary. That boundary is usually easy to define - it is "all of the building". There may be special cases x% of the building but leave that complication aside.)

(2) The second critical aspect is making sure that the intended mechanism actually happens. The key to this aspect is planned overkill in the cutting methods or devices. The big error to avoid is a partial collapse which hangs up leaving a very hazardous recovery situation. The solution is the same for both military and civilian demos - overkill and redundancy. The difference being that the military engineer can be brutal in overkill with little concern for "collateral damage" - the civilian demolisher has to be more prudent BUT still erring on the side of overkill.

What benefits would FEA give in assessing "overkill" which would warrant the complexity and cost of an FEA? Remember that the person considering using a tool to achieve some benefit in a task will be thinking "cost benefit" - "What do I gain and is it worth it?"

Since the key planning stage is "designing the collapse mechanism" that mechanism will be an overall concept made up of multiple separate elements such as "cut columns A-D-J & T" The overkill to cut each of those is a separate quantifiable task independent of the location of the element in the overall structure. There is not need for FEA in making the decisions. Despite there being many such decisions they are (at least most of them) independent.

Summary.
Your question was "Can FEA be used to model a controlled demolition?"

My answer is "Yes , it is plausible but why do it?"


And if the objective is "2) Using it for the fun/pleasure of playing with the tool." - that is a separate debate which does not interest me.

 

[ozeco41]

Troll baiting is one way to describe it. I've called it "counter-trolling" in the past....

Understood. I have also used "counter trolling" with the associated connotation of mild reprimand.

...Just look at how mad C7 gets over the proven leaning and severe physical damage to WTC7, or Tony S turning himself into an intellectual pretzel...

I admit I cannot understand the motivation of people spending energy chasing what they must be aware are fantasy delusions AND making fools of themselves by the mixture of silly claims and dishonesties. I cannot see how their actions are related to pursuit of truth. It is easy to see that the actions are consistent with trolling. BUT I cannot see why. What benefit? What ego stroking?

...These guys are mentally imbalanced and easily provoked... something they should consider when trying to troll us. They come in here huffing and puffing and trying to stir up the hornets nest,...

Mostly the tired of it middle level hornets these days - a few of the big names having retired to the back row. The issue I find interesting is that the prominent truthers or trolls currently are arch Gageophiles. And Gage must have the silliest strategy extant if he is after truth. There may be some issues of LIHOP or LIHOOI that are worth pursuing BUT they build their strategy on the loser of CD at WTC. The easiest technical claim to disprove despite the willingness of many members here to keep discussing false claims and the umpteenth replay of the same dead issues. The conclusion obvious that Gage is not after truth - rather his own income and ego boosting posturing in front of the limited but real group of converts.

...I see nothing wrong with poking them in their own soft spots and watching them @#$% their panties over it.

I comprehend the motivation. It conflicts with my natural desire to not feed their egos by responding. BTW I learned that many years before Internet and 9/11 - in the context of "pirate" operators transmitting on licensed user radio channels. Ignore the illegitimate so and so's was the invariable rule. And it tended to work.

I am in the minority here - so keep feeding the trolls - nothing I say will change that situation for the majority of active members.

Cheers.

 

[Justin39640]

Thank you for that moment of honesty.

A child can see that WTC 7 was a CD.

Yet not a single FDNY member claims the same thing.

 

[000063]

Indeed, Tony also said earlier that that it is unsafe to stand within 50 feet of a detonating demolition charge.




Yes, that is exactly what he is asserting. Tony believes, as does every other twoofer, that the FDNY were integral to the plot.

Yet I have never seen a Truther actually admit to such, even when their claims actually require it to be true. Even Clayton Moore has more self awareness than to shoot himself in the foot like that.

 

[LSSBB]

Thank you for that moment of honesty.

A child can see that WTC 7 was a CD.

A child can also see monsters under the bed.

But I guess I'm just repeating what you said.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I comprehend the motivation. It conflicts with my natural desire to not feed their egos by responding. BTW I learned that many years before Internet and 9/11 - in the context of "pirate" operators transmitting on licensed user radio channels. Ignore the illegitimate so and so's was the invariable rule. And it tended to work.

I am in the minority here - so keep feeding the trolls - nothing I say will change that situation for the majority of active members.

Cheers.

This forum is occasionally worthwhile for the rare gems like the conversation we had a few pages back about how explosives work.

Otherwise, I'm of two minds on this forums continued existence. Sometimes I can't resist popping arrogant egos that roll in here (or at least watching them get popped by other more capable people), but at the same time I think this whole forum should get shut down. Just make a single catch-all 9/11 CT thread in the main CT section, lock every thread in 9/11CT (to allow viewing by those interested) and call it a day.

 

[ozeco41]

This forum is occasionally worthwhile for the rare gems like the conversation we had a few pages back about how explosives work....

Definitely worthwhile for the gems but they are rare.

Second level of interest for me is in rigorously exposing logic errors or engineering errors involving bad logic - hence my efforts in this thread.

There has not been any reasoned debate of a new 9/11 issue for some years - by my standards even the scientific research into thermXte does not qualify as a 9/11 topic. (There was no themXte and even if there was it wasn't used for CD because there was no CD. So it is two degrees remote from 9/11 conspiracy.)

...Otherwise, I'm of two minds on this forums continued existence. Sometimes I can't resist popping arrogant egos that roll in here (or at least watching them get popped by other more capable people), but at the same time I think this whole forum should get shut down. Just make a single catch-all 9/11 CT thread in the main CT section, lock every thread in 9/11CT (to allow viewing by those interested) and call it a day.

Not a bad strategy. The former Richard Dawkins Forum operated on the "limit it to one thread" basis even when there were 9/11 issues still worthy of discussion. It worked well but far fewer members involved over there. I was the sector moderator for a couple of years AND the main technical poster on 9/11 WTC collapses. Had to manage the conflict of interest.

However when considering closing down or restricting this 9/11 sub-forum don't lose sight of the main reason it was started. That was to keep all the 9/11 woo in one place and stop it contaminating the other parts of the forum.

I think your "one thread" strategy could achieve that.

 

[Christopher7]

It's been interesting, educational and often humorous "debating" the walk-off theory [and non related diversions] with y'all. I will leave you to your personal attacks and denial of the fraudulent data that NIST included in their report to get their walk-off theory to work.

1) NIST lied about the width of the girder seat. They said it was 11" but the drawings show it was 1' 0".

2) NIST omitted the stiffeners that would have prevented walk-off failure.

Fair thee well

 

[ergo]

Yet not a single FDNY member claims the same thing.

Um...wrong.

(Can't believe that still has to be debunked.)

 

[ozeco41]

It's been interesting, educational and often humorous "debating" the walk-off theory [and non related diversions] with y'all. I will leave you to your personal attacks and denial of the fraudulent data that NIST included in their report to get their walk-off theory to work.

1) NIST lied about the width of the girder seat. They said it was 11" but the drawings show it was 1' 0".

2) NIST omitted the stiffeners that would have prevented walk-off failure.

Fair thee well

Best wishes. You will be missed.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

It's been interesting, educational and often humorous "debating" the walk-off theory [and non related diversions] with y'all. I will leave you to your personal attacks and denial of the fraudulent data that NIST included in their report to get their walk-off theory to work.

1) NIST lied about the width of the girder seat. They said it was 11" but the drawings show it was 1' 0".

2) NIST omitted the stiffeners that would have prevented walk-off failure.

Fair thee well

No explanation for the photos, video and firefighter testimony that shows WTC7 was leaning then, huh?

Run away then.

 

[ozeco41]

No explanation for the photos, video and firefighter testimony that shows WTC7 was leaning then, huh?

Run away then.

He has only run away from this thread.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I already pointed out to Tony S. that shockwaves aren't linear, and can go around corners; even with a pillar or several in the way, the shockwave would simply "flow" around it.

So trenches aren't effective against shockwaves in your world. Right, we understand.

So, you're asserting that
1. The FDNY is lying about putting a transit on the building, and therefore complicit in thousands of counts of murder, including 300+ of their own, and
2. if a building is leaning before collapse, it necessarily has to fall in that direction?

I never said the FDNY didn't put a transit on the southwest corner of WTC 7 to measure a bulge between the 10th and 13th floors. There was debris damage at that corner and a bulge may have occurred in a small area, but that is hardly an indication of a leaning building. I think you are confused.

This conversation about the building leaning before collapse is complete nonsense. It simply was not, no matter who simply said it was. There is no evidence whatsoever for it and the building comes down straight for at least the first 100 feet.

I am also pretty much done here, as the point concerning the impossibility of the NIST girder walk-off hypothesis has been amply made, and I have gotten my fill of laughing at the inanities being used by those who will apparently do and say anything to prop up the present official story concerning the collapse of this building, no matter what evidence they are confronted with showing it to be impossible.