WTC7 - The fires failed Girder 44-79

[enik]

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

So very true.

 

[DGM]

So very true.

Can I ask why you only addressed the first part of my post.

I'll answer what this has done for me. I've occupied time that was already wasted doing boring paper work. I also have met some people associated with the day and was involved with building a memorial and flying park (RC model) in honor of the victims.

 

[Gamolon]

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

It's easier for the truther deities and their followers to hide behind a curtain of ambiguity instead of providing a definitive conclusion.

Why spend time and money on providing a rational/detailed scenario that, when finally completed, would be subjected to scrutiny and probably found to be impossible. How many government haters and conspiracy followers would become homeless because of this?

It strokes their egos when they go to forums, blogs, and other places and claim their superior knowledge on a subject containing no hard proof.

For example, why would Gage waste his time providing a definitive scenario that could end his frolicking across the world spewing garbage to adoring fans, all the while sucking up $80,000 a year?

Keep the ball rolling. If it ain't broke, don't fix it...

 

[beachnut]

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.

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/enik-and-the-debate-with-jref-t439.html
What is your goal, a study of JREF, or ...

Was WTC 7 a CD? Was it an inside job? What is your purpose? Goal? Set? Match? When will you commit to a conclusion?

Will you provide evidence for an inside job?

 

[ozeco41]

It's easier for the truther deities and their followers to hide behind a curtain of ambiguity instead of providing a definitive conclusion.

Why spend time and money on providing a rational/detailed scenario that, when finally completed, would be subjected to scrutiny and probably found to be impossible. How many government haters and conspiracy followers would become homeless because of this?

It strokes their egos when they go to forums, blogs, and other places and claim their superior knowledge on a subject containing no hard proof.

For example, why would Gage waste his time providing a definitive scenario that could end his frolicking across the world spewing garbage to adoring fans, all the while sucking up $80,000 a year?

Keep the ball rolling. If it ain't broke, don't fix it...

Spot on!

And related aspect, another popular trick, which we have seen from early days of 9/11 discussion, is to keep the focus on details and going round in circles.

pgimeno described it concisely and accurately in a recent post in this thread:

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

There is no point arguing about whether or not there was thermXte in dust unless it was used for CD. There has never been "a complete alternative collapse hypothesis that fits all the evidence" and without such an hypothesis discussing dust will go nowhere. There remains the big hurdle of providing "a complete alternative collapse hypothesis". Even if there had been 100 tonne stockpiles of thermXte in every WTC building there was no CD therefore thermXte wasn't used in CD. So forget the thermXte dust you truthers and address the real question of "was there CD". If you can do that analysis of the dust may fall into place.

Ditto trying to prove NIST wrong in this thread is irrelevant. WTC 7 collapse occurred on 9/11, the NIST reports were years later. Even if NIST was wrong a report written later will not change the historic fact of no CD. Sure discussing "NIST was wrong" is a legitimate topic in its own right. But not in this thread where it is irrelevant. Once again pgimeno but it briefly and accurately:

...And that is the elephant in the room.

They don't realize that disproving NIST just won't cut it. NIST showed a probable (plausible) cause. Even if NIST made mistakes in their assumptions, proving them wrong does not in any way prove that a building can not collapse due to fire....

and I would take the logic one step further - proving NIST wrong does not prove CD.

The same invalid focus on details was also the trick employed by T Sz in arguing that NIST was wrong about the subject Girder 44-79 in the predecessor to this thread. He limited the scope of his FEA to the details which suited his pre-determined argument AND did not show that those limiting assumptions were valid.

His claim therefore his burden of proof to prove his claim right - not mine or "ours' to prove him wrong. Therefore not proving his assumptions was fatal to his claim because his claim was not made out ("not proved" in lay language.)

PLUS he also failed because several members showed that his FEA was wrong. So double failure.

You are spot on Gamolon when you say that "It's easier for the truther deities and their followers to hide behind a curtain of ambiguity...."

...they and certainly their followers here also rely on keeping the focus on details - whether those details are relevant or not. AND not taking into account the full context.

This thread has multiple examples of people putting the focus on irrelevancies as a tactic to avoid the reality that the OP remains "proven". "The fires failed Girder 44-79" will remain "proven" until someone puts forward a pro CD hypothesis which survives scrutiny. No one as done that for any WTC building in 11+ years so far. I don't see it happening.

Both "NIST was wrong" and "Tony Sz was wrong" add nothing to the debate of "WTC7 - The fires failed Girder 44-79" - both are derails so that the truthers or trolls don't have to face reality.

 

[enik]

Can I ask why you only addressed the first part of my post.

I thought it was obvious. Basically, I verified the NIST model for walk-off between columns 79 and 44. It even agrees with my hand calculations.

It strokes their egos when they go to forums, blogs, and other places and claim their superior knowledge on a subject containing no hard proof.

Do you know how much clout you bring to this topic if you did your own analysis? Do one and show us your skills.

 

[beachnut]

I thought it was obvious. Basically, I verified the NIST model for walk-off between columns 79 and 44. It even agrees with my hand calculations.

Do you know how much clout you bring to this topic if you did your own analysis? Do one and show us your skills.

Did you peak with your only conclusion on 911?

Debunkers are not smart.

You make fun of real models (or did you retract that), and your models have to look like what really happened. You make up the parameters to make your models match your conclusions, or match the "visual" record. Kind of silly, big fail.

With all your work, what is the conclusion? CD, or not CD? Inside job, not an inside job?

 

[Gamolon]

Do you know how much clout you bring to this topic if you did your own analysis? Do one and show us your skills.

Why? I don't have an alternative collapse theory other than what NIST states. I'm not arguing that NIST was wrong. I do not claim that thermite or explosives were used to bring the 3 building down.

As I have said, not one, single solitary conspiracy spewer has EVER provided a paper showing HOW thermite or explosives achieved what we all see in the videos and pictures.

Why not?

11 years of zilch.

 

[jaydeehess]

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.

Great. A suggestion; perhaps you could ask for assistance froma group of qualified architects or engineers who share your passion. Now if only someone could suggest such a group.

Don't get me wrong because of my sarcastic response. My estimation of you has gone up with this. You actually seem interested in doing some actual engineering work to examine the event. What fries my beans most is that after 11 years of ************ about how these were CDs, most of what the truth movement has to demostrate such a thing is a 'it looks like one' arguement. Professionals of various stripes have banded together on this matter yet cry poor when it is suggested that they perform real engineering experiments or computer modeling to check against those performed by NIST.

If you want to proclaim that Ford makes better cars than Dodge it affects no one if all you do is kvetch about it on the internet. If you are talking about what, or who, caused the deaths of 3000 people then you better be able to actually demonstrate some evidence to support your position. NIST did that, so far the truth movement has failed badly in that regard.

 

[jaydeehess]

Why? I don't have an alternative collapse theory other than what NIST states. I'm not arguing that NIST was wrong. I do not claim that thermite or explosives were used to bring the 3 building down.

As I have said, not one, single solitary conspiracy spewer has EVER provided a paper showing HOW thermite or explosives achieved what we all see in the videos and pictures.

Why not?

11 years of zilch.

and 11 years of JREF posters asking, suggesting, cajoling truth movement internet posters to do real research and demonstrate their contentions have some backing other than a 'it looks like', handwaving, arguement.

 

[twinstead]

I loose track of all the cute little ways truthers try to reverse the burden of proof in this debate.

 

[ozeco41]

Great. A suggestion; perhaps you could ask for assistance froma group of qualified architects or engineers who share your passion. Now if only someone could suggest such a group.

I suggest that it would be prudent to define the objective first. Few professionals would be interested in pursuing a project which has ambiguous goals.

The three goals which are often confused in relation to WTC 7 collapse are:

1) Determine whether or not CD was involved in the collapse. Comment: The fact of "No CD" is easily determined to the necessary standards of proof without detailed structural analyses. In fact the range of errors associated with alternate proofs of no CD are probably far less that the range of errors in the assumptions beneath any structural analysis. And structural analysis is, at best, an indirect way of approaching the question of CD.

2) Prove that the NIST explanation is wrong. Comment: Why?

3) Identify details of plausible collapse mechanisms to satisfy some personal technical interest. Comment: Why? Specifically:

• Why if it is not to support a "NIST was wrong" belief or a belief in CD? What is the pure professional interest in such an investigation? AND
• If the objective was re-open either the "NIST was wrong" claims or the "It was CD claims". What legitimate respected professional would join such a project. And what value would the results have if the professional(s) who became involved were already outcasts from the deluded fringe?

 

[ozeco41]

I loose track of all the cute little ways truthers try to reverse the burden of proof in this debate.

Agreed.

We should start a catalogue of Reverse Burden and other tricks. Give them numbers.

Then the response to a truther could be quite brief:

....[Gish Gallop Wall of text]...

1;
3;
Two lots of 7;
And a final 3.

It would save a lot of typing and a bit of bandwidth.



PS Do you remember the joke abut the newly committed criminal entering the lifers jail and meeting the old lags??

 

[Miragememories]

"As I have said, not one, single solitary conspiracy spewer has EVER provided a paper showing HOW thermite or explosives achieved what we all see in the videos and pictures.

Why not?"

Because speculation serves no useful purpose.

Discovering the truth no matter where it leads does serve a very useful purpose.

When the Japanese were nuked twice at the end of WWII, I am sure they had no idea what happened. They could not imagine what form of advanced munitions technology had been used on them. Speculation about this new technology would have been both futile and pointless.

Finding unexpected evidence of nanothermite in the WTC residue is akin to finding unexpected radiation throughout the remains of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

We know it should not be there, but without a full investigation, we have no way of knowing how it came to be.

MM

 

[jaydeehess]

I suggest that it would be prudent to define the objective first. Few professionals would be interested in pursuing a project which has ambiguous goals.

The three goals which are often confused in relation to WTC 7 collapse are:

1) Determine whether or not CD was involved in the collapse. Comment: The fact of "No CD" is easily determined to the necessary standards of proof without detailed structural analyses. In fact the range of errors associated with alternate proofs of no CD are probably far less that the range of errors in the assumptions beneath any structural analysis. And structural analysis is, at best, an indirect way of approaching the question of CD.

2) Prove that the NIST explanation is wrong. Comment: Why?

3) Identify details of plausible collapse mechanisms to satisfy some personal technical interest. Comment: Why? Specifically:

• Why if it is not to support a "NIST was wrong" belief or a belief in CD? What is the pure professional interest in such an investigation? AND
• If the objective was re-open either the "NIST was wrong" claims or the "It was CD claims". What legitimate respected professional would join such a project. And what value would the results have if the professional(s) who became involved were already outcasts from the deluded fringe?

Well the view I would have is that the 911 TM is dedicated to proving that some malefeasence was in play that actually, with malice of forethought, put in place mechanisms by which it was assured that all three Manhattan buildings were fully and completely demolished on Sept 11 and that one section of the Pentagon also suffered such a fate; and moreover that this was deliberately masked by aircraft impacts (whether real or faked), and in the specific case of WTC 7 masked by the resultant impact of WTC 2 & 1 debris.

Thus the objective would be to look at ways to :
a) Show that explosvies or thermitic materials were IN PLAY and CAUSED the destructions in the fashion observed. This could be in two parts, first demonstrate through computer modelling that it is possible to do so, thus getting a range for the size and number of charges required to have the structures fail as observed, and second to demonstrate that these materials were actually used.

b) Run experiments or models to falsify the NIST scenarios. This is really not as important since these will either show NIST to be correct within a margin of error, or they will show NIST to have been off by a significant margin. Obviously showing that NIST was correct does nothing for the TM premise, but even if NIST is shown to be wildly in error it still does not directly bolster the premise of CD, and indirectly its barely significant to that end.

Oddly enough, over the past 11 years what little real work has been done by the TM has focused on "b"

 

[jaydeehess]

Because speculation serves no useful purpose.

Discovering the truth no matter where it leads does serve a very useful purpose.

When the Japanese were nuked twice at the end of WWII, I am sure they had no idea what happened. They could not imagine what form of advanced munitions technology had been used on them. Speculation about this new technology would have been both futile and pointless.

Finding unexpected evidence of nanothermite in the WTC residue is akin to finding unexpected radiation throughout the remains of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

We know it should not be there, but without a full investigation, we have no way of knowing how it came to be.

MM

So you 'know' that the WTC structures and/or the Pentagon were deliberatley demolished by forces closer to home than an Islamic fundementalist organization considering itself at war with the west/USA because you were not speculating that it is so. You actually have some hard evidence do you?

 

[jaydeehess]

Thermite that requires an oxygen atmosphere to burn, that is the thermite that MM is refering to of course.

Of course I refer to the fact that the testing that he refers to that identified some of the dust residue as thermitic did have it ignite but there was free oxygen in the chamber and thus there is no indication that this material is self oxidizing as thermite is.

There was another test done in which attempted to falsify the Harrit experiments (BTW anyone not understanding 'falsification' needs to look it up) and its conclusions were that the residue is more consistent with paint than thermite.

 

[Miragememories]

So you 'know' that the WTC structures and/or the Pentagon were deliberatley demolished by forces closer to home than an Islamic fundementalist organization considering itself at war with the west/USA because you were not speculating that it is so. You actually have some hard evidence do you?

I believe it is highly unlikely that the aircraft which hit the WTC Twin Towers were carrying enough nanothermite for its residue to be found throughout the WTC debris dust.

It may have been that operatives for an "Islamic fundementalist organization" were 'on the ground' during 9/11 and that they were responsible for the 'inside job'.

But without a full and proper investigation, whomever were responsible remain free and clear and 19 hijackers are handed the full implausible blame.

MM

 

[beachnut]

I believe it is highly unlikely that the aircraft which hit the WTC Twin Towers were carrying enough nanothermite for its residue to be found throughout the WTC debris dust.

There was no nano-thermite in the WTC, that was fantasy created by an idiot, Jones, who seems to be insane. Ironically, the jet fuel had more energy than 130 TONS of thermite.
Does this mean WTC 7 did fail in fire, so you gish gallop into nonsense and lies to cover-up your failure to back in the BIG lie, the inside job?

It may have been that operatives for an "Islamic fundementalist organization" were 'on the ground' during 9/11 and that they were responsible for the 'inside job'.

LOL, you think UBL and his failed terrorists are dumb enough to risk the operation on some idiots planting thermite in the WTC? An idea only insane old men have, like Jones and Harrit.
So you do support fire caused a failure in WTC 7, or not. Are you off topic?

But without a full and proper investigation, whomever were responsible remain free and clear and 19 hijackers are handed the full implausible blame.

MM

19 terrorists did 911. It was a fake hijacking, they stole the aircraft to use as KE weapons. UBL can do math and physics, unlike the failed 911 truth movement, understand E=1/2mv². I don't think he knew the WTC would collapse, but he knew what KE was. This is why a fake hijacking would work on 911, no one would know there were no demands until after impact, until those who could stop the hijacking, the fake one, were murdered in place.

So you agree fire failed something in WTC 7? Was this post to help Enik? Is he with you on the Big Lie, the inside job stuff?

I have a very large ignore list
MM

You ignored the topic, and all evidence pertaining to 911. That is a very large list of ignore.

 

[Justin39640]

Because speculation serves no useful purpose.

Discovering the truth no matter where it leads does serve a very useful purpose.

When the Japanese were nuked twice at the end of WWII, I am sure they had no idea what happened. They could not imagine what form of advanced munitions technology had been used on them. Speculation about this new technology would have been both futile and pointless.

Finding unexpected evidence of nanothermite in the WTC residue is akin to finding unexpected radiation throughout the remains of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

We know it should not be there, but without a full investigation, we have no way of knowing how it came to be.

MM

You are aware that both Japan and the Nazis had nuclear bomb programs, no?