I do not need to do an analysis. Neither you nor Tony validated the assumptions that went into your model. As I said before, you always win the game when you make the rules up for yourself.
The evidence is in the building collapse and fire. There is no evidence of any other mechanism being responsible for the collapse of the building other than the fire. An analysis of the collapse points to the beams-girder-column 79 as the mechanism.
Even if the analysis were proven to be an inch short of collapse, at one particular junction, the variability of the rest of the structure could still result in an error stack of 1" and result in failure.
In any case, the burden of proof that building could not collapse due to the fire is on anyone questioning the visible, auditory and physical record that only shows fire (plus some physical and seismic damage from the WTC1 and 2 collapse) as being actors in the collapse initiation. Where are your silent and invisible bombs?
Spot on.
The topic here is "WTC7 - The fires failed Girder 44-79"
Even those trying to shift either the topic OR the object of discussion won't deny that WTC7 collapsed. (Well they haven't done so far but with T Sz, enik, MM who knows how far they will go. At this stage they have enough "debunkers" agreeing with them on the approach to logic from the wrong end of the topic or way off the topic.
)
So the issue in this thread is the true dichotomy that collapse of WTC7 fell either as a result of fire or as a result of some combination of fire and CD. Read the OP everyone.
Sure BasqueArch included a reference to "Tony Sz was wrong" and even he probably missed the fact that whether or not Tony was wrong is irrelevant to the main theme of the OP. Tony's FEA is irrelevant. Enik's was better than Tony's but still irrelevant and NIST findings are also irrelevant. There was no CD therefore WTC 7 fell as the result of fire. And the girder was part of WTC7 so it also fell as result of fire. Very simple stuff.
So if "they" want to disagree with the OP of this thread they must prove CD. And it would be better if debunkers stopped going along in support of enik and MM's current tactics of going into details which are off topic. Stock standard truther/trolling evasion by derail tactics and folk are helping them do it.
Sure some folks want to discuss details. But the errors of Tony's finding were done to death in the earlier thread. He was wrong at the detail level as shown by several members AND his case was not proven in the bigger picture because he did not properly support his assumptions as shown repeatedly in full detailed explanations by me and LSSBB.
There is not now and never had been a viable prima facie hypothesis for CD.
So WTC7 fell as a result of fire. AND the subject girder is part of the WTC7 which collapsed. So the girder failed as a result of fires.
That much is simple and self evident. And that much is on the topic. Whether or not NIST was right is not this topic.
The reasons that people are discussion the details of why and how the girder failed is that truthers and or trolls pretending to be truthers - Szamboti, Enik, MM - have to rely on arse about logic in a futile attempt to pretend proof of CD. OR to derail into discussion of "NIST was wrong". NIST is irrelevant - NIST is not even mentioned in the OP. NIST is not needed to resolve "CD or not?" on 9/11 NIST was not involved on 9/11. Their report was years later and whether or not their report was correct it cannot change the facts of 9/11 history.
WTC7 fell as the result of fires without help of CD. The girder was part of WTC7 so it failed in the collapse. What part it played in the collapse is not the topic of this thread NOR does it change the "No CD" status.
