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

[BasqueArch]

I have proven the NIST lateral walk-off is impossible. Your notion of an axial walk-off due to girder buckling caused by axial interference is what I am analyzing now. As I said, it is a non-linear analysis and requires much more iterative work on the part of the software and is much more computationally intensive. The number of equations is well over 1,000,000 for this type of analysis.

MHM is asking for your work on the girder push-off is impossible analysis. You say you have done this already. You can post it here.

Buckling by axial expansion restrained by the columns is not the only cause of girder buckling.

If you have already done the FEA girder push-off work is impossible with its multiple causes of girder buckling, the only check for the seat failure then is whether the hot cantilevered unstiffened seat failed. This should be simpler.

 

[MileHighMadness]

So you haven't yet proven the girder walk off is impossible, like you claim, or that the seat would have failed. You're still working on it. MHM has volunteered an ftp site, take him up on it.

Tony has contacted me...I'm setting up a ftp site at my work on Monday, so he can upload his work.

I take Tony at his word...I look forward to looking at his work.

MHM

 

[ozeco41]

Maybe we should start a new thread outlining the core demands for a new investigation? So far, everyone I've seen AE make leads to an investigation that could not possibly be "independent".

Unless of course AE does one themselves.

There are two separate issues conflated in that concept:
1) A proposed discussion on this forum which need have little connection with reality 'out there' in the real world; AND
2) The alleged need for a new investigation 'out in that real world' where it has some impact.

For the new investigation those demanding it will need to establish a strong prima facie case that it is needed AND the political process to ensure that it comes about.

It is now 2012 and so far there has not been a prima facie case coherently expressed by any part of the truth movement.

Establishing such a case would need to satisfy legal and political criteria. It would not be open to the manipulative trickery and debating tactics we see practised in these threads. For one example only the resort to evasion would not be available - and evasion is probably the most commonly deployed trick of the truthers (or trolls?) we see here. The other 'trick' we see routinely used is 'reverse burden of proof' in the form of 'you prove us wrong'. Debunkers here accept that challenge all the time. It would not be available in the context of any valid new investigation. Seriously how much of a csae has anyone in the truth movement put for any of the four main technical claims about 9/11? How much of a case exists if we purge these threads of 'reversed burden of proof'?

Likewise Tony's preferred tactic of keeping debate circling over details is very unlikely to survive examination by serious legal/political advocates. It is fun here but would not survive in the real world of 'prove it' hard interrogation. And the question of the irrelevancy of a possible error of detail in a NIST report would be laughable in any realistic setting for a 'new investigation'. There are two objectives here - 'prove NIST wrong on a detail' AND 'show that there was CD'. And the link between them is tenuous at best. The NIST report was written years after the event. Whether it is right or not cannot change the facts of any event which occurred years earlier. 'CD or not?' rests on facts of what happened on 9/11 and no report can change those facts.

I'm an engineer and part lawyer and only have a passing acquaintance with psychology. But I cannot comprehend the depth of delusion needed for allegedly technically trained persons to hold to claims of CD. And, given that truther claims such as Tony's in this thread shy away from the CD issue, I question how genuine those claims can be. And, take away the CD question, the only basis for a new investigation is 'We think NIST got a detail wrong but we cannot prove it.' Scarcely the level of concern to start a new formal inquiry process.

Why should the community of the US invest any more into pursuing the unsupported claims of a small minority? The first step for the truth movement - if 'they' genuinely want a further investigation - is to establish a prima facie case that the need exists. I don't see them getting within miles of doing that.

 

[DGM]

There are two separate issues conflated in that concept:
1) A proposed discussion on this forum which need have little connection with reality 'out there' in the real world; AND
2) The alleged need for a new investigation 'out in that real world' where it has some impact.

Well.........After Tony's post a couple down from the one you responded too, I asked the all mighty rulers of JREF for a split.

As this is clearly off topic.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

There are two separate issues conflated in that concept:
1) A proposed discussion on this forum which need have little connection with reality 'out there' in the real world; AND
2) The alleged need for a new investigation 'out in that real world' where it has some impact.

For the new investigation those demanding it will need to establish a strong prima facie case that it is needed AND the political process to ensure that it comes about.

It is now 2012 and so far there has not been a prima facie case coherently expressed by any part of the truth movement.

Establishing such a case would need to satisfy legal and political criteria. It would not be open to the manipulative trickery and debating tactics we see practised in these threads. For one example only the resort to evasion would not be available - and evasion is probably the most commonly deployed trick of the truthers (or trolls?) we see here. The other 'trick' we see routinely used is 'reverse burden of proof' in the form of 'you prove us wrong'. Debunkers here accept that challenge all the time. It would not be available in the context of any valid new investigation. Seriously how much of a csae has anyone in the truth movement put for any of the four main technical claims about 9/11? How much of a case exists if we purge these threads of 'reversed burden of proof'?

Likewise Tony's preferred tactic of keeping debate circling over details is very unlikely to survive examination by serious legal/political advocates. It is fun here but would not survive in the real world of 'prove it' hard interrogation. And the question of the irrelevancy of a possible error of detail in a NIST report would be laughable in any realistic setting for a 'new investigation'. There are two objectives here - 'prove NIST wrong on a detail' AND 'show that there was CD'. And the link between them is tenuous at best. The NIST report was written years after the event. Whether it is right or not cannot change the facts of any event which occurred years earlier. 'CD or not?' rests on facts of what happened on 9/11 and no report can change those facts.

I'm an engineer and part lawyer and only have a passing acquaintance with psychology. But I cannot comprehend the depth of delusion needed for allegedly technically trained persons to hold to claims of CD. And, given that truther claims such as Tony's in this thread shy away from the CD issue, I question how genuine those claims can be. And, take away the CD question, the only basis for a new investigation is 'We think NIST got a detail wrong but we cannot prove it.' Scarcely the level of concern to start a new formal inquiry process.

Why should the community of the US invest any more into pursuing the unsupported claims of a small minority? The first step for the truth movement - if 'they' genuinely want a further investigation - is to establish a prima facie case that the need exists. I don't see them getting within miles of doing that.

The need exists because as hard as NIST tried to see if it could have been a natural collapse it does not appear that WTC 7's collapse was due to natural causes. That means there are others at large who had a hand in the events in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001. The guys in the aircraft could not have caused the unnatural collapse of WTC 7.

There is no manipulative trickery going on here on my part or that of others demanding a new invstigation. That is all in your head.

 

[DGM]

The guys in the aircraft could not have caused the unnatural collapse of WTC 7.

They didn't. Why would you imply that they did? The collapse of the towers caused WTC7's demise.

I don't understand why you would bring up the hijackers. It's like saying "it wasn't hit by an airplane", it's a diversion.

 

[tsig]

AE911Truth does not have official standing other than rights as citizens to demand propriety, so they can't do the investigation and you should know that.

Actually, I think NIST could do the new investigation, which would show the original investigation to be flawed, if the engineers and scientists were picked randomly by an impartial body.

So the only way the investigation could confirm the original is if the scientists are biased?

You've just said you'd deny the results of a new investigation if it didn't confirm your conclusions.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

They didn't. Why would you imply that they did? The collapse of the towers caused WTC7's demise.

I don't understand why you would bring up the hijackers. It's like saying "it wasn't hit by an airplane", it's a diversion.

By implication I meant the damage from the aircraft and what ensued during the collapse of the towers could not have caused the collapse of WTC 7.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

So the only way the investigation could confirm the original is if the scientists are biased?

You've just said you'd deny the results of a new investigation if it didn't confirm your conclusions.

I am saying that is what I am confident they would find based on the results of my own research and investigation.

 

[DGM]

By implication I meant the damage from the aircraft and what ensued during the collapse of the towers could not have caused the collapse of WTC 7.

Still rings of party line propaganda.

You've been trying to sell this too long.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Still rings of party line propaganda.

You've been trying to sell this too long.

Whatever you want to think Doug. The reality is that the NIST report on WTC 7 is not correct and the collapse of WTC 7 needs to be re-investigated.

I have said enough and don't have all day to rehash this now clear point.

 

[tsig]

The need exists because as hard as NIST tried to see if it could have been a natural collapse it does not appear that WTC 7's collapse was due to natural causes. That means there are others at large who had a hand in the events in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001. The guys in the aircraft could not have caused the unnatural collapse of WTC 7.

There is no manipulative trickery going on here on my part or that of others demanding a new invstigation. That is all in your head.

Who were these people? How did they cause the collapse? Where are they now?

 

[Animal]

Get real. The guy looks wore out every time I see him. He just did a 32 city tour in 50 days to present the Experts Speak Out movie. That isn't something most people want to do.

Guess it takes a lot of energy to perpetuate a fraud like AE Troof for as long as he does.

 

[Oystein]

The need exists because as hard as NIST tried to see if it could have been a natural collapse it does not appear that WTC 7's collapse was due to natural causes. That means there are others at large who had a hand in the events in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001. The guys in the aircraft could not have caused the unnatural collapse of WTC 7.

There is no manipulative trickery going on here on my part or that of others demanding a new invstigation. That is all in your head.

Tony,

there you go again, making a global claim of "impossibility". You think you have proven it, but most disagree. More importantly, the reverse positive claim of CD hasn't been proven positively, and you don't even claim it has - do I read you correctly on that count?


I am curious. I think you are genuinely convinced of your claims.

In june 2007, you were roughly the 100th signer of the AE911Truth petition. At the time, the NIST-report on WTC7 wasn't out yet, and no one had written a paper on "active thermitic material found in the WTC dust". Yet, at the time (this is june 7th, 2007), ae911Truth.org already had the following claims about WTC7 on their front page:

As your own eyes witness - WTC Building #7 (a 47 story high-rise not hit by an airplane) exhibits all the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition with explosives:
1. Rapid onset of “collapse”
2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse (heard by hundreds of firemen and media reporters)
3. Symmetrical “collapse” – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance
4. Squibs, or “mistimed” explosions, at the upper 7 floors seen in the network videos
5. “Collapses” into its own footprint – with the steel skeleton broken up for shipment
6. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
7. Tons of molten Metal found by CDI (Demolition Contractor) in basement (no other possible source than an incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate)
8. Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
9. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
10. Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional
11. Fore-knowledge of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY​

I am wondering, Tony: Did you believe back then that all these claims were true? Do you still believe they are true? Notice that these are not only 11 claimed facts about WTC7, but also 11 accompanying claims that these 11 alleged facts are "the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition with explosives", and additionally 11 implied claims that these alleged facts are not also characteristic of a natural collapse, so we actually have 33 claims here:

1a. The "onset" of WTC7's collapse was in fact "rapid".
1b. This is a characteristic of a classic controlled demolition with explosives
1c. This cannot be a characteristic of an unassisted progressive collapse.

2a. Hundreds of firemen and media reporters in fact heard sounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second (not much sooner or later!) prior to collapse
2b. This is a characteristic of a classic controlled demolition with explosives
2c. This cannot be a characteristic of an unassisted progressive collapse.

3a. Collapse was in fact "symmetrical" collapse, it was in fact "through the path of greatest resistance", it was in fact "at free-fall speed" and in fact "the columns gave no resistance"
3b. This is a characteristic of a classic controlled demolition with explosives
3c. This cannot be a characteristic of an unassisted progressive collapse.

4a. "Squibs, or mistimed explosions", at the upper 7 floors were in fact seen in the network videos
4b. This is a characteristic of a classic controlled demolition with explosives
4c. This cannot be a characteristic of an unassisted progressive collapse.

5a. WTC7 did in fact "collapse into its own footprint", and the steel skeleton was in fact "broken up for shipment"
5b. This is a characteristic of a classic controlled demolition with explosives
5c. This cannot be a characteristic of an unassisted progressive collapse.

6a. There was in fact "massive volume" of expanding "pyroclastic dust clouds"
6b. This is a characteristic of a classic controlled demolition with explosives
6c. This cannot be a characteristic of an unassisted progressive collapse.

7a. There were in fact "tons" of "molten Metal" found by CDI (Demolition Contractor) in basement, and there is in fact "no other possible source than an incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate"
7b. This is a characteristic of a classic controlled demolition with explosives
7c. This cannot be a characteristic of an unassisted progressive collapse.

8a. The "chemical signature of Thermate" (high tech incendiary) was in fact found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
8b. This is a characteristic of a classic controlled demolition with explosives
8c. This cannot be a characteristic of an unassisted progressive collapse.

9a. FEMA did in fact "rapid" oxidation and "intergranular melting" on structural steel samples
9b. This is a characteristic of a classic controlled demolition with explosives
9c. This cannot be a characteristic of an unassisted progressive collapse.

10a. The "top European Controlled Demolition professional" did in fact give expert corroboration for all this
10b. This is a characteristic of a classic controlled demolition with explosives
10c. This cannot be a characteristic of an unassisted progressive collapse.

11a. The media, NYPD, FDNY did in fact have "fore-knowledge" of collapse
11b. This is a characteristic of a classic controlled demolition with explosives
11c. This cannot be a characteristic of an unassisted progressive collapse.


Tony, 33 claims - some of these actually multiple claims. I am wondering:
Do you agree with ALL of them? Or with how many of these 33 do you agree?
If not, how many do you disagree with - i.e. you think they are FALSE?
How many do you have no opinion on (or a "don't know" or "depends on unknowns" or "I don't understand what that's even supposed to mean")?


As for me,

• I agree with 11 of the 33 claims
• I disagree with 16
• I can't decide on 6

Note that the claims I agree with are mostly the b- or c-parts of these claims; for example, I agree that explosions are typically heard by hundreds of people before an actual explosive CD, and that this is not characteristic for natural collapses; however I strongly disagree that many people heard such explosions a second prior to collapse.

Occasionally, I agree with with the a-claim - for example that there were squibs, but I disagree with the implied claim that this is not also typical for natural collapses.

In none of the 11 cases do I agree with both the a-claim and the b- or c-claim.


Tony, just your numbers. I am curious.

 

[Justin39640]

Get real. The guy looks wore out every time I see him. He just did a 32 city tour in 50 days to present the Experts Speak Out movie. That isn't something most people want to do.

LMAO... Poor baby! Really?? You're gonna pull that crap on a guy who works 10 to 12 hours a day in 90°+ weather everyday? How's the AC in your office? If you two tried a day at work with me, it'd probably kill ya. lol

Not for nothing either, I would love to get a paid trip to 32 cities.

Your 'appeal to supposed hard work' is a fail.

 

[tfk]

MHM,

Tony has contacted me...I'm setting up a ftp site at my work on Monday, so he can upload his work.

I take Tony at his word...I look forward to looking at his work.

MHM

A couple of my objections to Tony's claims...

Here a point of specific disagreement between NIST & Tony, which I brought up to him in the post below.

NIST says explicitly that the girder between c79 & c76 pushes c79 to the east. See:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8323896&postcount=2205

Tony's response: "Did not, did not…!"
___

Second point, which I outlined here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8449737&postcount=3162

and which referred to the 2nd half of this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8449693&postcount=3159

The point of this second argument is that, for their preliminary model, NIST produced an LS-DYNA model of a single floor of the entire Northeast quadrant of a "typical" office floor of WTC7.

They set some arbitrary temps in the beams (600°C) & girders (500°C) let the model ramp up to those temps over a short period of time, and watched what broke.

This model was 1000x more detailed than anything that Tony has claimed to do.

And yet, the model gave completely wrong answers, regarding what failed & how, compared to the real model (16 stories & true time-temp curves for components) that they used for analysis: the ANSYS model.

My point: even an highly complex FEA model, if not complex enough, can produce GIGO.

Tony's response to this argument: silence.


Tom

 

[ozeco41]

You are more generous than I am Oystein.

Here is my count:

• I agree with 5 of the 33 claims
• I disagree with 21
• I can't decide on 6 - because either the statement is ambiguous OR undefined with the consequence that either b or c responses are undefinable.
• I can't decide with 1 because I don't know the key fact(s)

And take care with this comment:

...Occasionally, I agree with with the a-claim - for example that there were squibs,...

You are using 'squibs' to refer to spurts of dust irrespective of the cause of the spurt whereas truthers use 'squibs' to mean specifically (or to imply) the use of explosives to cause those dust spurts.

...In none of the 11 cases do I agree with both the a-claim and the b- or c-claim.

What about 11a and 11b?

 

[ozeco41]

...My point: even an highly complex FEA model, if not complex enough, can produce GIGO....

...and that includes getting the boundaries and assumptions right.

Separate issue but I seriously doubt that the thermal dynamics can be defined adequately to allow results to be guaranteed. But I haven't been near the details to get a grasp on the sensitivities to error in temperatures and rates of temperature change.

...Tony's response to this argument: silence....

Which, on the evidence in this thread, seems to be the flag that your argument was too good.

 

[Oystein]

You are more generous than I am Oystein.

Here is my count:

• I agree with 5 of the 33 claims
• I disagree with 21
• I can't decide on 6 - because either the statement is ambiguous OR undefined with the consequence that either b or c responses are undefinable.
• I can't decide with 1 because I don't know the key fact(s)

Nothing wrong with being generous ^^

And take care with this comment:

You are using 'squibs' to refer to spurts of dust irrespective of the cause of the spurt whereas truthers use 'squibs' to mean specifically (or to imply) the use of explosives to cause those dust spurts.

"Squib" happens to be a word I never heard of outside of 9/11 twoofiness debates, and I didn't look it up. So any meaning it has in my mind comes from this context. "Squib" = "directional dust ejecta". In that sense, I concede there were probably "squibs" seen during the collapse of WTC7 (i.e. well after the supposed explosions would have initiated the collapse).
Actually, this is the question where I agree with both a and b - I agree there were dust ejecta, and I suppose that is indeed common in demolotions; but disagree that it would be uncommon in natural collapses. All wil often have squibs for the same reason: Volumes of air leave compressed structure through existing openings.

What about 11a and 11b?

I disagree with 11a - the foreknowledge that the FDNY and the mass media had was of a fact different from what fire departments and media know before a planned CD. They did not know that there would be an explosive demolition.
I guess I was more pedantic on this than on the squib question?

Doesn't matter so much. What I am saying here is "I can agree with some things that Gage says, even though I think that he is totally wrong by and large". I want to check if Tony is as open and honest and able to say "I can disagree with some things that Gage says, even though I think that he is totally right by and large". Surely there must be a couple or three among these claims that even Tony knows are wrong?

 

[ozeco41]

Nothing wrong with being generous ^^

..."Squib" happens to be a word I never heard of outside of 9/11 twoofiness debates, and I didn't look it up. So any meaning it has in my mind comes from this context. "Squib" = "directional dust ejecta". In that sense, I concede there were probably "squibs" seen during the collapse of WTC7 (i.e. well after the supposed explosions would have initiated the collapse)...

Squib is a term for a small explosive device but often carries the secondary meaning of a failed explosive device.

In my childhood, north of England, we celebrated the annual 'bonfire and fireworks night' in memory of Guy Fawkes - I won't derail - try Google . In those days fireworks were freely available for public purchase. The fireworks included 'pretty ones' for display, rockets and 'bangers'. Sometimes the 'bangers' went off 'fizzzz' rather than 'BANG' and were known as squibs - failed bangers or 'fizzers'.

So I automatically associate 'squib' with the explosive device - not the dust plume which is can cause.

...I guess I was more pedantic on this than on the squib question? ..

Being pedantic is my job.

...Surely there must be a couple or three among these claims that even Tony knows are wrong?

Remember truthers are committed to false global claiming.