WTC7 - The fires failed Girder 44-79

[ozeco41]

Are we now moving past the idea that the girder could fail and onto the idea that the column could fail?
If we are then if you are contending explosives severed col 79 show us the evidence that such heavy explosives were employed?

At least he is moving towards the right end of the logic - the proper starting point for the topic of this thread. We know that Col 79 failed because the East Penthouse Fell. (BTW I don't need FEA to know that. )

And the issue that enik and others are avoiding is that sooner or later they will have to prove CD. And no-one has ever gone close. Not even a prima facie argument. Ever. By anyone.

And the topic of this thread is not "NIST was wrong" NOR is it necessary to refer to whether or not NIST was wrong. And, since that simple fact has been explained many times, anyone referring to NIST was wrong is off topic and probably engaging in truther trickery.

So, for those of us who remember the OP is "WTC7 - The fires failed Girder 44-79" (Plus an additional comment that "Tony was wrong"), let's take the argument the right way round. That is working from the big picture down towards the details rather than letting truthers keep us in irrelevant details so they can avoid the reality that their claims are false.

Try this - and see if any truther is prepared to lay his/her logic out:

"Dear truther:
1) WTC7 was not standing after 9/11. True or false?
2) WTC fell down after it had been affected by fires. True or false?
3) Some people contend that there may have been CD involved in the collapse; True or false?
4) So what is under debate is whether it was "Fire alone" or "Fire plus CD in some combination". True or false?
5) And whether or not NIST was right in a plausible explanation or T Sz was right on a poorly founded bit of FEA or enik was right on a bit of slightly better founded FEA all three of those explanations/counter claims were written years after 9/11. Soa) No report written years later can change what actually happened. True or False?
(b) Therefore neither NIST explanations or FEA's done years later can change history of what really happened. True or false?

So, with those bits of correct context setting let's get down to reality for WTC7 on 9/11.
6) The East Penthouse was observed to fall early in the collapse sequence. True or false?
7) Col 79 was under the EPH. True or false?
8) For the EPH to fall Col 79 must have failed. True or false?

(I'll stop there because I will bet that none of the truthers or trolls is prepared to put their money where their mouth keyboard is and spell out their responses to that logical sequence. )

Now the item that needs factoring in is "Was there CD"

And the item that is irrelevant to this thread topic is "Was NIST's explanation right. It is irrelevant to this thread topic. And irrelevant to the CD or no CD argument. A derail. An evasion.

The status of CD in general is that there is no pro CD hypothesis on the table which meets prima facie standards of being worth discussion.

So "fire is "proved' and CD is "not proved" in lay person English.

Hence my comment that enik is heading towards the right end of the logic. Unusual given that he and T Sz habitually ignore arguments which falsify their flawed claims. Plenty of evidence of both committing that bit of deception in recent posts. Links for those who cannot find them.

 

[jaydeehess]

indeed the truther counterpart to ozeco's post above would seem to be that the tmeline is correct but if nist details of how that observation initiated are wrong then that equals cd

supremely flawed logic otherwise known as ' fail'

 

[jaydeehess]

Personally I have been waiting for evidence of truther contentions since I first saw a contention of explosives in the towers shortly after 9/11 in a post on ' The Blackvault'
past decade and still nothing compelling

 

[jtl]

ozeco41: anyone referring to NIST was wrong is off topic and probably engaging in truther trickery.

There are some really wonderful comedians here, but this one is my favorite so far. The heading for this thread is the hypothesis that "the fires failed girder 44-79", but given the restrictions imposed by the latest comedian, anyone who dares to challenge this hypothesis is off-topic and "probably engaging in trickery". This reminded me of certain Creationist forums, and I really needed a couple of minutes to stop laughing before I could respond.

put their money where their mouth keyboard is and spell out their responses to that logical sequence.

That sequence always boils down to the same premise of the office fire being able to heat and expand the protected girder. There is no logic to that NISTical sequence of events without experimental proof that office fire would heat and expand the protected girder as NIST claims with Biblical authority. It is up to NIST to prove that their premise for this sequence is valid, so it is NIST that should have put its money where its mouth is, for that "first time in history" sequence of events.

 

[tsig]

There are some really wonderful comedians here, but this one is my favorite so far. The heading for this thread is the hypothesis that "the fires failed girder 44-79", but given the restrictions imposed by the latest comedian, anyone who dares to challenge this hypothesis is off-topic and "probably engaging in trickery". This reminded me of certain Creationist forums, and I really needed a couple of minutes to stop laughing before I could respond.



That sequence always boils down to the same premise of the office fire being able to heat and expand the protected girder. There is no logic to that NISTical sequence of events without experimental proof that office fire would heat and expand the protected girder as NIST claims with Biblical authority. It is up to NIST to prove that their premise for this sequence is valid, so it is NIST that should have put its money where its mouth is, for that "first time in history" sequence of events.

Office fire heat is different than other heat?

You know that when the towers were built it was the "first time in history" that office buildings were built that tall so I guess they weren't real.

 

[LSSBB]

There are some really wonderful comedians here, but this one is my favorite so far. The heading for this thread is the hypothesis that "the fires failed girder 44-79", but given the restrictions imposed by the latest comedian, anyone who dares to challenge this hypothesis is off-topic and "probably engaging in trickery". This reminded me of certain Creationist forums, and I really needed a couple of minutes to stop laughing before I could respond.



That sequence always boils down to the same premise of the office fire being able to heat and expand the protected girder. There is no logic to that NISTical sequence of events without experimental proof that office fire would heat and expand the protected girder as NIST claims with Biblical authority. It is up to NIST to prove that their premise for this sequence is valid, so it is NIST that should have put its money where its mouth is, for that "first time in history" sequence of events.

NISTs calculations are based on the existing body of knowledge of the expansion of said materials under heat. Those tables are all based on actual experimental testing of said materials, heat transfer rates of those materials, and heat transfer rates of insulating materials. The tables upon which their calculations are based are referenced within the NIST publications and they are based on actual experimental testing.

Oz in any case correct. Whether NIST is right is irrelevant. They were wrong in stating there was a sustained period of freefall in their summary, they were off by an inch in a drawing, so they can be wrong. Who cares. The OP is of whether fire can cause the failure in one specific subsystem. Steel expands when heated, so yes it can collapse. If the measurements in drawings all are short but close enough to collapse, then yes, collapse can happen - and I'll tell you why in the next paragraph.

My qualifications were earlier brought into question. Well, I have a MS in Mechanical Engineering. Currently I work as a Six Sigma Black Belt, and that is where I have understanding of probability distributions. If you stack up all the probability distributions across all the affected connections, and you have one connection broken and free to move, there is a significant real probability of collapse if you are calling only an inch into question. And that real probability means YES, collapse CAN occur due to fire, it CANNOT be ruled out. Since there is no other evidence of an alternate initiating mechanism, collapse due to fire is what we have.

 

[MileHighMadness]

Side note...I'm building my model of column 79, which is a W14 x 750 jumbo steel section with 2" x 26" or 3" x 26" side plates. My question for our truther forum members...how can you get thermite to burn/cut thru 3" and 4" thick structural steel plate in a quick and effective manner?

 

[LSSBB]

Side note...I'm building my model of column 79, which is a W14 x 750 jumbo steel section with 2" x 26" or 3" x 26" side plates. My question for our truther forum members...how can you get thermite to burn/cut thru 3" and 4" thick structural steel plate in a quick and effective manner?

Good luck to them, seeing as Thermite was only used in building demolition once, and it wasn't very quick, or effective - one Sky Ride tower at the 1933 World's Fair in Chicago. Off topic of course, we discussed this one in an earlier thread, for the curious.

 

[Animal]

There are some really wonderful comedians here,...

Comedians - Troofer speak for "people I do not understand"

 

[Dog Town]

Side note...I'm building my model of column 79, which is a W14 x 750 jumbo steel section with 2" x 26" or 3" x 26" side plates. My question for our truther forum members...how can you get thermite to burn/cut thru 3" and 4" thick structural steel plate in a quick and effective manner?

According to Dr.Jones their therm*te guru, it wasn't used like that. It was only used as a match, to trigger high explosives. Go figure.

 

[ozeco41]

Comedians - Troofer speak for "people I do not understand"

Exactly...

There are many members posting here on topics that are beyond my ability to explain. Just a few that I cannot understand when they explain it to me. Easily dealt with - I say "That's beyond me" or something similar. Not a problem either way.

On the things I do understand I rarely shy away from explaining even if the topic is a bit complicated.

However if the problem is at Grade "X" the explanation must be at least Grade "X" preferably "X+1" or "X+2". And that presents problems for those who operate at Grade "X minus 3, 4 or 5".

- AND it is not always possible to explain a Grade "X" problem in very simple language.

But that is not the situation here and I am confident that my reasoning is easy to follow... I even laid it out as the start of a road map.

...therefore someone doesn't want to follow.

 

[ozeco41]

Side note...I'm building my model of column 79, which is a W14 x 750 jumbo steel section with 2" x 26" or 3" x 26" side plates. My question for our truther forum members...how can you get thermite to burn/cut thru 3" and 4" thick structural steel plate in a quick and effective manner?

(Bending my own rules of engagement with "off topic" )

- agreed THEN (In the WTC 9/11 setting) don't forget:
1) Without a means of installing it;
2) Without getting caught;
3) Without being very visible in use;
4) Without leaving evidence behind;
5) Whilst contributing to a collapse dominated by impact and fire damage;
6) And conforming invisibly to an overall mechanism where thermXte is redundant;
7) Where, because it is redundant, it achieves nothing anyway;

etc etc etc....ad infinitum and nauseatum.

 

[ozeco41]

...That sequence always boils down to the same premise of the office fire being able to heat and expand the protected girder. There is no logic to that NISTical sequence of events without experimental proof that office fire would heat and expand the protected girder as NIST claims with Biblical authority. It is up to NIST to prove that their premise for this sequence is valid, so it is NIST that should have put its money where its mouth is, for that "first time in history" sequence of events.

I suspect that you may genuinely think that your statement is logical. If that is so and you are not prepared to follow a truly logical sequence of reasoned discussion there is nothing that I can do to help you.

There are threads where there has been some discussion of flawed reasoning processes. But the topic here is "WTC7 - The fires failed Girder 44-79" and discussion of flawed reasoning processes does not belong here.

I have laid out the simplest version posted so far of why the OP claim is correct. Occam should be proud of it. Maybe someone can put it even simpler - lets see.

However anyone mentioning NIST is off the track for this topic.

 

[ozeco41]

Personally I have been waiting for evidence of truther contentions since I first saw a contention of explosives in the towers shortly after 9/11 in a post on 'The Blackvault' past decade and still nothing compelling

I think it is the foundation flaw for all discussion of WTC collapses - WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7.

There never was even prima facie case to consider CD.

But we debunkers have engaged in discussion of CD to respond to genuine truthers back in the days when "genuine truther" was a term of respect and not an oxymoron.

They raised genuine concerns about the possibility of CD and "rational people" with necessary skills did a job explaining why no CD.

However we were explaining what didn't really need explaining and that was thin end of the wedge to the current situation.

We have given credibility to the arguments of not so genuine truthers and the trollery which dominates current discussions.

And we let ourselves and others forget the basic fact. There was no CD and there has never been a prima facie credible claim for CD.

The most extreme example of "playing the truthers game" is arguably the dust investigation threads. There was no CD. Whether or not there was thermXte on site there was no CD. Even if there had been 100 tonne stockpiles of thermXte in each of the towers there was no CD so thermXte was not used for CD.

Repeat all the above changing "thermXte" to "explosives".

 

[pgimeno]

It's not about "winning".

It is about the truth!

Ahh, cherry-picked truth, I see!

Because this particularly important (and obviously right) snippet was not a part of "the truth" that you decided to quote-mine:

The only way for truthers to start having a case is to show a complete alternative collapse hypothesis that fits all the evidence.

Also, there was an important "if" in the snippet you copied from me.

 

[Gamolon]

At least he is moving towards the right end of the logic - the proper starting point for the topic of this thread. We know that Col 79 failed because the East Penthouse Fell. (BTW I don't need FEA to know that. )

This right here.

How come, in all the time since 9/11, NIST is the only entity that has come up with an explanation, with calculations, to describe what happened to those buildings?

Why has not one truther come up with the steps and/or events, complete with calculations of any type, to try and explain what we saw that day? There is not one paper anywhere. All they want to do is try and prove NIST wrong instead of coming up with a more plausible scenario with details.

All they can do is say it was thermite or explosives and the debate ends there.

Nobody has the grapes to come forward and say X amount of thermite was placed here on column 79, X amount of thermite was placed here, here, here, and here on the floor beams to separate them from the girder, and X amount of thermite was placed here on the girder to separate that from column 79. Then take those circumstances and test them with models to see if they can match the the collapse events.

Why has this not been done?

Tony? jtl? MM? Gage? Jones? Harrit? ANYONE?

It's been 11 years and not one alternative scenario has been proven with any sort of calculations.

 

[enik]

My qualifications were earlier brought into question. Well, I have a MS in Mechanical Engineering. Currently I work as a Six Sigma Black Belt, and that is where I have understanding of probability distributions.

I was the one asking. I qualified as a green belt some years ago, worked with six sigma while in the automotive industry.

Can you show me a few pictures of known columns from a building that has gone through CD?

Side note...I'm building my model of column 79, which is a W14 x 750 jumbo steel section with 2" x 26" or 3" x 26" side plates. My question for our truther forum members...how can you get thermite to burn/cut thru 3" and 4" thick structural steel plate in a quick and effective manner?

You are the expert, where would you place it, hypothetically? I would guess at the splices that connect the columns together..

 

[DGM]

I was the one asking. I qualified as a green belt some years ago, worked with six sigma while in the automotive industry.

I also heard you were a snappy dresser and an above average dancer. Don't sell yourself short.

 

[enik]

…How come, in all the time since 9/11, NIST is the only entity that has come up with an explanation, with calculations, to describe what happened to those buildings?

I started to put one together, but the time required to put in the cross bracing and the built up columns over the substation was way more than I wanted to commit. Besides, modeling WTC 1 and the trusses was much easier.

 

[DGM]

I started to put one together, but the time required to put in the cross bracing and the built up columns over the substation was way more than I wanted to commit. Besides, modeling WTC 1 and the trusses was much easier.

So is arguing on the internet. What have you actually achieved again?