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

[cjnewson88]

Funny how these 911 cult kiddies are always trying to say NIST is wrong, NIST is telling lies, NIST is trying to fool people.

Yet it's not NIST that is roaming the internet, pestering people into joining their beliefs, it's not NIST handing out alex jones dvds and ae911 pamphlets on street corners. It's not NIST running around calling people shills if you don't join them.

Exactly. It's like Ron Wieck said regarding the Harrit, Jones et al Thermite claim, the fact that these people have this earth shattering information that proves the official story false, but it dwells in the depth of the internet being discussed by so few .. yeah right.

Edit: To quote;

If I had evidence that contradicted the mainstream account of the events of 9/11, and I was persuaded of the validity of that evidence, I would do everything in my power to win a pulitzer prize, I'd wanna see my mug on the cover of Time and Newsweek, ya know, fame and fortune at my beckoning. I would seek out every mainstream scientist, engineer, demolition expert I possibly could, and I would confront them with my evidence. Now the idea that you have this blockbuster evidence and all you can do is skulk in the bowels of the Internet? Hehe, just no, no. I'm afraid not.

 

[ozeco41]

Funny how these 911 cult kiddies are always trying to say NIST is wrong, NIST is telling lies, NIST is trying to fool people.

Yet it's not NIST that is roaming the internet, pestering people into joining their beliefs, it's not NIST handing out alex jones dvds and ae911 pamphlets on street corners. It's not NIST running around calling people shills if you don't join them.

It's even sillier than that.

Whether or not NIST was right with its explanation has no effect on reality. There was no CD on 9/11 and whether an explanation given years later is right or wrong cannot change history.

The only goal that this nonsense has is to get NIST to admit a detail piece of fact - just as NIST did explaining 'free fall' of WTC 7 as a PR exercise for a science teacher who doesn't understand physics.

Why do the truthers want this?

Simply so they can lie about it the same way they did with the 'fact' that Chandler 'forced' NIST to 'admit'. Utter nonsense. Free fall was never an issue of significance, neither is >G FFA in the limited context of free body motion in an isolatable sub-system. But it represents the depths of mendacity that the 9/11 'Truth' movement has sunk to. If ever it was much higher.

Why bring it here to get demolished by the collective expertise available here. I don't know....some sort of self indulging masochism perhaps. Whatever the reason the outcome was never in doubt.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

And what was NIST's response when you presented this information to them Tony?

Exactly. It's like Ron Wieck said regarding the Harrit, Jones et al Thermite claim, the fact that these people have this earth shattering information that proves the official story false, but it dwells in the depth of the internet being discussed by so few .. yeah right.

Edit: To quote;

It is hardly true that those of us who have shown the NIST collapse initiation scenario for WTC 7 to be impossible only discuss it on the Internet and do nothing else about it.

A large number of technical people (including myself) provided comments to NIST disputing many of the specific points and contentions made in their WTC 7 report, as well as it's overall conclusion, during the three week comment period allowed in late August/early September 2008.

The NIST WTC 7 investigators wrote a paper which was published by the Journal of Structural Engineering in January 2012. Two Discussion papers were submitted by two sets of authors in May 2012 disputing many of that paper's specific points and contentions, as well as it's overall conclusion.

In fact, the recent correction of the width of the girder seat at column 79 under the girder between columns 44 and 79 from 11" to 12" was generated as a result of the criticism of the NIST WTC 7 report. There are several other corrections which have not been made yet and will have to be in the future.

 

[NoahFence]

Anything of note remain unchanged?

Oh, right. Their conclusions. No CD.

waste of time.

 

[Justin39640]

It is hardly true that those of us who have shown the NIST collapse initiation scenario for WTC 7 to be impossible only discuss it on the Internet and do nothing else about it.

A large number of technical people (including myself) provided comments to NIST disputing many of the specific points and contentions made in their WTC 7 report, as well as it's overall conclusion, during the three week comment period allowed in late August/early September 2008.

The NIST WTC 7 investigators wrote a paper which was published by the Journal of Structural Engineering in January 2012. Two Discussion papers were submitted by two sets of authors in May 2012 disputing many of that paper's specific points and contentions, as well as it's overall conclusion.

In fact, the recent correction of the width of the girder seat at column 79 under the girder between columns 44 and 79 from 11" to 12" was generated as a result of the criticism of the NIST WTC 7 report. There are several other corrections which have not been made yet and will have to be in the future.

You believe fires aren't dangerous to large buildings. Those other people understand just how destructive fire can be. You are not technical and shouldn't include yourself in that group.

 

[cjnewson88]

Still didn't answer my question Tony.

 

[Animal]

It is hardly true that those of us who have shown the NIST collapse initiation scenario for WTC 7 to be impossible only discuss it on the Internet and do nothing else about it.

A large number of technical people (including myself) provided comments to NIST disputing many of the specific points and contentions made in their WTC 7 report, as well as it's overall conclusion, during the three week comment period allowed in late August/early September 2008.

i.e. you and "a large number of technical people's arguments were rejected.

The NIST WTC 7 investigators wrote a paper which was published by the Journal of Structural Engineering in January 2012. Two Discussion papers were submitted by two sets of authors in May 2012 disputing many of that paper's specific points and contentions, as well as it's overall conclusion.

i.e. Knowledgeable engineers had their paper published, troofers.....not so much

In fact, the recent correction of the width of the girder seat at column 79 under the girder between columns 44 and 79 from 11" to 12" was generated as a result of the criticism of the NIST WTC 7 report. There are several other corrections which have not been made yet and will have to be in the future.

WOW.....I am impressed.......an editing error was corrected.

 

[Justin39640]

I still find it hysterical that Tony tries to ally himself with people who believe fire can destroy a building, just cause they criticized the NIST's theory.

 

[ozeco41]

I still find it hysterical that Tony tries to ally himself with people who believe fire can destroy a building, just cause they criticized the NIST's theory.

What intrigues me is the question of motivation.

Given:
1) The obvious reality that there was no CD at WTC on 9/11; AND
2) The equally obvious factor that there could be remaining unresolved political issues in the range of lots of scattered-LIHOOI, midi-LIHOP and micro-MIHOP.#

There is obviously no reason to pursue CD other than to maintain Gage's income

Why doom the possibly legitimate political goals by tying them to the sure fire loser of "There was CD at WTC"?


# Explanation if you really need it.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Still didn't answer my question Tony.

The recent questions about WTC 7 are a result of the release of the WTC 7 drawings in the past six months.

I contributed to a series of questions/comments about things that were discerned from the drawings that were not included in the NIST models and would have had an effect on their analysis. These included the girder stiffeners, the width of the girder seat on the north side of column 79, and the beam stubs on G3005. The questions/comments were sent to NIST via FOIA in March. NIST responded to the stuctural engineer who sent them with an e-mail giving the links to their recent errata and latest FAQ. They did not even mention the stiffeners or beam stubs.

I hope that answers your question.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You believe fires aren't dangerous to large buildings. Those other people understand just how destructive fire can be. You are not technical and shouldn't include yourself in that group.

i.e. you and "a large number of technical people's arguments were rejected.



i.e. Knowledgeable engineers had their paper published, troofers.....not so much



WOW.....I am impressed.......an editing error was corrected.

I still find it hysterical that Tony tries to ally himself with people who believe fire can destroy a building, just cause they criticized the NIST's theory.

Somebody must have left a gate open here for you guys to get out. I wouldn't even try to explain to anyone that some people actually make these types of comments, if they can even be called that. I guess this kind of absolute inanity is what one risks getting hit with when they go on a site that doesn't require any backup for comments.

 

[Animal]

Somebody must have left a gate open here for you guys to get out. I wouldn't even try to explain to anyone that some people actually make these types of comments, if they can even be called that. I guess this kind of absolute inanity is what one risks getting hit with when they go on a site that doesn't require any backup for comments.

Troofer projection at its finest .

 

[Justin39640]

Somebody must have left a gate open here for you guys to get out. I wouldn't even try to explain to anyone that some people actually make these types of comments, if they can even be called that. I guess this kind of absolute inanity is what one risks getting hit with when they go on a site that doesn't require any backup for comments.

I'd love to hear you explain to someone how fire can't harm a building if it's big enough. BTW... how large does a building have to be before you consider it to be completely fireproof?

 

[Robrob]

I guess this kind of absolute inanity is what one risks getting hit with when they go on a site that doesn't require any backup for comments.

Uh, yeah...

 

[GlennB]

Somebody must have left a gate open here for you guys to get out. I wouldn't even try to explain to anyone that some people actually make these types of comments, if they can even be called that. I guess this kind of absolute inanity is what one risks getting hit with when they go on a site that doesn't require any backup for comments.

Earlier you claimed that col 79 must have been targeted by some kind of demolition device. You were asked how "they" could know that col 79 would be subject to severe fire around those particular floors, thus either providing a cover story for NIST to exploit or an event that NIST would inevitably use to explain the collapse (depending how embroiled you think NIST is in the CT)

You didn't respond, but perhaps you missed the question.

Could you take a moment to consider an answer?

 

[Oystein]

... a site that doesn't require any backup for comments.

This may be a not-my-native-language thing, but what do you mean by "require any backup for comments"?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

This may be a not-my-native-language thing, but what do you mean by "require any backup for comments"?

Supporting information providing a basis for and showing the comments have merit.

 

[Oystein]

Supporting information providing a basis for and showing the comments have merit.

LOL

Says the man who absolutely refuses to hold his tag team partner C7 to that same standard

Tony, I have said plenty of times: I am not an engineer. But I can read, and I got logic.
What good are your facts if your logic is screwed? One doesn't even need facts to show your logic sucks

 

[cjnewson88]

LOL

One doesn't even need facts to show your logic sucks

 

[twinstead]

Says the man who absolutely refuses to hold his tag team partner C7 to that same standard

This is what irritates the the most about truthers. If you're going to hold sources that you disagree with up to a microscope, you need to do it with sources you agree with.