WTC7 - The fires failed Girder 44-79

[LSSBB]

You seem to be mistaken about the definition of physical evidence.

You seem to be confused about what constitutes answering a question. I didn't ask you about NIST and physical evidence, I asked you about Tony's assumptions.

Nice dodge, going back to your old Physical Evidence chestnut. I'm sure it will generate plenty of endless debate distraction for you, as it has so far. Ahhh, the old standbys, eh?

 

[DGM]

Well then I guess the debate centers on what was "obvious" and "observable."

The displaced girder was neither.

Not actually true. It's obvious the girder was displaced because we observed the building fall down. If it was the initiating event is debatable.

Is there any reason to consider anything other than fire? I can't think of any (nor has anyone come up with a plausible one).

 

[ozeco41]

I see you are taking Tony's statements with blind faith here. What assumptions is Tony making in order to make his statements, and has he validated those assumptions?

Three threads, a couple of thousand posts, and the original context (assumptions AND ignoring a lot of factors ) are still in place just as
Tony took the lead over from C7.

Nobody seems to have noticed that Tony has actually conceded a couple of the key points you and I made way back at the beginning. Remember the columns which could not have moved?

You seem to be confused about what constitutes answering a question. I didn't ask you about NIST and physical evidence, I asked you about Tony's assumptions....

...yes.... but... it doesn't fit Red's SOP to respond. He looks for the little bits of loose logic debunkers often leave him THEN attacks there with his stock in trade of ambiguous definitions of words playing the 'tight' definition off by use of innuendo against the 'loose' one.

Specific example of that ploy as you identify it:

Nice dodge, going back to your old Physical Evidence chestnut. I'm sure it will generate plenty of endless debate distraction for you, as it has so far. Ahhh, the old standbys, eh?

It works for Red's standard mode of trolling so why should he change?

Not actually true. It's obvious the girder was displaced because we observed the building fall down. If it was the initiating event is debatable....

Mmmm....

...Is there any reason to consider anything other than fire? I can't think of any (nor has anyone come up with a plausible one).

That remains the overriding question. Nobody in trutherdom has ever made a coherent claim to prima facie level for CD in the WTC collapses. All this 'NIST wuz wrong' derail is still irrelevant - except for those having fun proving Tony wrong of his false claims.

Tony has even failed in his tactical ploy tried to pretend that CD was not under discussion and limit discussion to the claim that 'NIST was wrong'. Sadly he has lacked the discipline to stay with his own plan and has revealed his CD claim - from memory at least four times but I cannot be bothered counting. Someone else can check but he has made the tactical mistake, multiple times, and the exact number matters not.

Which is sad for Red's bit of 'fine logic' trying to hold to the line that CD is not on the table. Tony has put CD in the debate despite his own attempt to avoid it.

 

[Redwood]

It is a known fact that NIST did not support their unprecedented WTC 7 collapse hypotheses with any physical evidence. I didn't need Tony to tell me that. I simply concurred.

The drop of the east mechanical penthouse, 6-7 seconds before the drop of the central penthouse and complete collapse, isn't physical evidence?

Not to mention the massive fires, and note well the big fires on the lower floors on the northeast corner, right where column 79 was, which you can see in the video with Vince DeMentri.

 

[RedIbis]

Not actually true. It's obvious the girder was displaced because we observed the building fall down. If it was the initiating event is debatable.

Is there any reason to consider anything other than fire? I can't think of any (nor has anyone come up with a plausible one).

That's very circular logic. You don't know the girder was displaced when the bldg collapsed. It could certainly have collapsed without the girder being displaced.

And you certainly don't have any evidence for it, just speculation.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

If you want to know the strength of a steel girder in WTC 7 for calculation purposes then you don't actually need the physical specimen in order to perform a tensile test to find the actual strength.

What you need is the "spec minima". What that is is the minimum strength as specified in the material specification (for whatever section).

From that you can then extrapolate for temperature because you'll have huge amounts of data on that specification across a range of temperatures and you'll also have data on comparable specifications.

It's even possible that data from the original manufacturers quality control tests were used but it's not required.

The need for the physical evidence would be to see how it failed not to determine what the physical properties were. What you are saying here is irrelevevant and essentially a strawman. It is analagous to investigating a murder by taking a sample human being for physical properties and dimensions. That does not help when it comes to seeing the wounds and how the death may have occurred.

The fact that none of the steel was saved from WTC 7, in what was ostensibly the first steel framed high-rise in history to collapse due to fire, was an extraordinary violation of investigatory protocol. NFPA 921 is quite clear in this regard. This could only have been done for one of two reasons: extreme incompetence or to further a cover-up. Both require questions to be asked of those who participated in the removal. The fact that that hasn't been done has to raise questions of its own.

 

[DGM]

That's very circular logic. You don't know the girder was displaced when the bldg collapsed. It could certainly have collapsed without the girder being displaced.

But, I do know. The girder was not in it's original position after the collapse was over.

 

[Oystein]

...
The fact that none of the steel was saved from WTC 7, in what was ostensibly the first steel framed high-rise in history to collapse due to fire, was an extraordinary violation of investigatory protocol. NFPA 921 is quite clear in this regard. This could only have been done for one of two reasons: extreme incompetence or to further a cover-up. Both require questions to be asked of those who participated in the removal. The fact that that hasn't been done has to raise questions of its own.

Let's suppose we all agree with this.

• What specific "questions of its own" would you raise?
• How would a new investigation undo these failures, given that you can't make the steel magically re-appear?
• How do you plan to tell whether it was incompetence or a cover-up?

I say you can lament the failure to retain all the steel all you want, but this crying doesn't constitute an actual argument wrt the question what caused the girder to fail, the column to become unbraced and the collapse to initiate. Or does it?

 

[LSSBB]

Ahhh yes, the conversation continues to run away from my question. I tip my hat to you, RedIbis. You sir, are the Duke of Diversion, the Phantom of the Feint.

Another endless semantical freeforall over What Is Physical and Whether NIST Used It.

RedIbis, your attention please: do you know and accept Tony's assumptions in his "analysis" of The NIST WTC7 report?

 

[Animal]

That's very circular logic. You don't know the girder was displaced when the bldg collapsed. It could certainly have collapsed without the girder being displaced.

And you certainly don't have any evidence for it, just speculation.

Not in the observed manner.

Troofer Fail once again.

 

[Animal]

Let's suppose we all agree with this.

• What specific "questions of its own" would you raise?
• How would a new investigation undo these failures, given that you can't make the steel magically re-appear?
• How do you plan to tell whether it was incompetence or a cover-up?

I say you can lament the failure to retain all the steel all you want, but this crying doesn't constitute an actual argument wrt the question what caused the girder to fail, the column to become unbraced and the collapse to initiate. Or does it?

TS would want to take years trying to determine how the fish actually died.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICuxBf1Ieu4&feature=player_embedded#!

 

[Gamolon]

The fact that none of the steel was saved from WTC 7, in what was ostensibly the first steel framed high-rise in history to collapse due to fire, was an extraordinary violation of investigatory protocol. NFPA 921 is quite clear in this regard. This could only have been done for one of two reasons: extreme incompetence or to further a cover-up. Both require questions to be asked of those who participated in the removal. The fact that that hasn't been done has to raise questions of its own.

I haven't read the entire NFPA 921 manual Tony. I have only briefly looked at summations on what this manual is use for. Please explain something to me.

Here is a quote from another website that I found interesting:

As a building owner or tenant, when a fire occurs in your structure you need to know why it happened and who is responsible. A fire investigator would typically answer these questions by performing an origin and cause investigation. However, the typical origin and cause information may not tell the whole story.

In the case of WTC7 we know who was responsible and why the fire occurred do we not?

Since I have not read the NFPA 921 manual, can you please point me to the section that refers to saving physical evidence in order to determine exactly how fire caused a structure to fail?

 

[RedIbis]

The need for the physical evidence would be to see how it failed not to determine what the physical properties were. What you are saying here is irrelevevant and essentially a strawman. It is analagous to investigating a murder by taking a sample human being for physical properties and dimensions. That does not help when it comes to seeing the wounds and how the death may have occurred.

The fact that none of the steel was saved from WTC 7, in what was ostensibly the first steel framed high-rise in history to collapse due to fire, was an extraordinary violation of investigatory protocol. NFPA 921 is quite clear in this regard. This could only have been done for one of two reasons: extreme incompetence or to further a cover-up. Both require questions to be asked of those who participated in the removal. The fact that that hasn't been done has to raise questions of its own.

Slight correction, Tony. WPI did have steel from WTC 7 so some of it must have been saved. Why NIST wasn't able to obtain it from WPI or have some other pieces saved is a mystery everywhere except in this subforum.

 

[DGM]

The fact that none of the steel was saved from WTC 7, in what was ostensibly the first steel framed high-rise in history to collapse due to fire, was an extraordinary violation of investigatory protocol. NFPA 921 is quite clear in this regard. This could only have been done for one of two reasons: extreme incompetence or to further a cover-up. Both require questions to be asked of those who participated in the removal. The fact that that hasn't been done has to raise questions of its own.

Or there is a third possibility that I know you hate to consider. That NFPA 921 does not apply because the cause of the fire is known. But, you know this.

 

[Gamolon]

Tony,

If steel was retained and analyzed, how would one determine exactly where each of those pieces were located in the structure before the collapse?

 

[Gamolon]

Slight correction, Tony. WPI did have steel from WTC 7 so some of it must have been saved. Why NIST wasn't able to obtain it from WPI or have some other pieces saved is a mystery everywhere except in this subforum.

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

27. Why didn't the investigators look at actual steel samples from WTC 7?

Steel samples were removed from the site before the NIST investigation began. In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, debris was removed rapidly from the site to aid in recovery efforts and to facilitate emergency responders' efforts to work around the site. Once it was removed from the scene, the steel from WTC 7 could not be clearly identified. Unlike the pieces of steel from WTC 1 and WTC 2, which were painted red and contained distinguishing markings, WTC 7 steel did not contain such identifying characteristics.

 

[GlennB]

Tony,

If steel was retained and analyzed, how would one determine exactly where each of those pieces were located in the structure before the collapse?

Even if you could ... I picture a series of aircraft hangars with tens or hundreds of thousands of massive steel members and other lumps of debris stacked and labelled, and eventually someone comes along asking for a specific piece. Then the cranes move in and spend months shifting 60% of it to some spare space so that item #19872 can be extracted only to find it wasn't correctly labelled originally.

And why all this fuss? Because they anticipated that some internet kooks several years in the future would demand "physical evidence"?

Here's some advice TS - the world doesn't (and never will) arrange its business to suit your fantasies. And if I were you I'd stop complaining, as if it did then you'd look a bigger fool than you already do.

 

[BasqueArch]

This is it in a nutshell.

You would think on a skeptics forum there would be some skepticism in situations such as this. Instead, blind faith causes supporters to simply make a statement, claim it as twoof, and berate any dissent.

Your concise descriptions and exhaustive analysis are appreciated, but it is disconcerting how easily hypotheticals without any evidence are so easily accepted amongst these so-called debunkers and skeptics.

It is a known fact that NIST did not support their unprecedented WTC 7 collapse hypotheses with any physical evidence. I didn't need Tony to tell me that. I simply concurred.

The two ideas are not inextricable. You can simply state that NIST did not back up their collapse hypotheses with any physical evidence without supporting or making any claims about CD.

You do get that right?

You're not doing Tony any favors. He claims he has proof 7 did not collapse due to fire without looking at any steel. He claims 7 was blowed up without looking at any steel and without any other evidence and against cd evidence.
Get it together with Tony and get back to us when you both have figured out which way is least contradictory and delusional.

 

[BasqueArch]

Slight correction, Tony. WPI did have steel from WTC 7 so some of it must have been saved. Why NIST wasn't able to obtain it from WPI or have some other pieces saved is a mystery everywhere except in this subforum.

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

Supreme Court Rules
Being Loudly Wrong Without Any Pants On
Still Legal In US Interwebs​

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You're not doing Tony any favors. He claims he has proof 7 did not collapse due to fire without looking at any steel. He claims 7 was blowed up without looking at any steel and without any other evidence and against cd evidence.
Get it together with Tony and get back to us when you both have figured out which way is least contradictory and delusional.

You just explained why the steel needed to be saved.