WTC7 - The fires failed Girder 44-79

[ozeco41]

Congratulations, jaydee, you move to the head of the Truther class.

Ooops.....Looks like my last broadside caused some collateral damage. Blue on blue....

And it has been so much fun making bold assertions about no opposing hypothesis. Now I will have to consider saying "no opposing.....other than some brilliant work by JDH..."

alternatively I could debunk both his brilliant hypotheses... Which would probably cause as much collateral damage to his ego as the accidental direct hit.

So I'll leave well enough alone and pretend I didn't see his post.

 

[jaydeehess]

Congratulations, jaydee, you move to the head of the Truther class.

Ooops.....Looks like my last broadside caused some collateral damage. Blue on blue....

And it has been so much fun making bold assertions about no opposing hypothesis. Now I will have to consider saying "no opposing.....other than some brilliant work by JDH..."

alternatively I could debunk both his brilliant hypotheses... Which would probably cause as much collateral damage to his ego as the accidental direct hit.

So I'll leave well enough alone and pretend I didn't see his post.

Nah, What the H, let's do it..
I have big enough shoulders to take the load.

Assume I am on Red Team and let's attack the weaker first, my propissition ( spelling deliberate) in post 897.

WTC 7 was rigged to deliberatly have the center portion of the top 7 floors ('cause I likes round numbers and this puts the collapse down to floor 40) to create a unobservable platform for large H+O rocket motors


,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and begin,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

[ozeco41]

Nah, What the H, let's do it..
I have big enough shoulders to take the load.

Assume I am on Red Team and let's attack the weaker first, my propissition ( spelling deliberate) in post 897.

WTC 7 was rigged to deliberatly have the center portion of the top 7 floors ('cause I likes round numbers and this puts the collapse down to floor 40) to create a unobservable platform for large H+O rocket motors


,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and begin,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

The sad aspect of all this is that your parody dashed off in whatever - 15 minutes - is a more coherent overall hypothesis than anything I recall being posted by the truth movement.

You actually had multiple factors linked in a sort of maybe plausible logic array.

What truther scheme even takes two factors and links them plausibly?
What truther scheme even takes three factors and links them plausibly?
What truther scheme even takes four factors and links them plausibly?
What truther scheme even takes five factors and links them plausibly?
etc etc - you see the point?

 

[jaydeehess]

The sad aspect of all this is that your parody dashed off in whatever - 15 minutes - is a more coherent overall hypothesis than anything I recall being posted by the truth movement.

You actually had multiple factors linked in a sort of maybe plausible logic array.

What truther scheme even takes two factors and links them plausibly?
What truther scheme even takes three factors and links them plausibly?
What truther scheme even takes four factors and links them plausibly?
What truther scheme even takes five factors and links them plausibly?
etc etc - you see the point?

Indeed I do. In the more ridiculous of my propositions I wanted to account for not only the acceleration at g but the portion measured to be above g, the later is a factor widely ignored by trutherdom.

It also removed some requirement for loss of structural integrity through explosive/therm?te charges by increaseing downward force on the structure. I was even prepared to bring up the few examples of 'cardboard' missiles and their rocket motors in order to reduce the probability that these get found. In addition they would be disguised as generators.

In the other somewhat more plausible , earlier proposition, I accounted for the observed fashion by which the building failed simply by following the NIST research that had a single girder failure lead to col 79 failure thence to progressive core column failure and global collapse. Of course I suspect that no truther would ever dare to agree with it BECAUSE it borrows from the hated NIST, even though one must account for the observed collapse sequence in any contention of how it happened.


and we wait.
and wait
and wait

 

[HannibalGroup]

Where can I find the claims in this post addressed?

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-s...ical-errors-and-omissions-in-nist-report.html

Thanks.

 

[MileHighMadness]

Forum members...who is David Cole?

 

[Gamolon]

Forum members...who is David Cole?

I don't see him as a signatory as "general public" or "architect/engineer" on their petition.

 

[ozeco41]

Where can I find the claims in this post addressed?

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-s...ical-errors-and-omissions-in-nist-report.html

Thanks.

I doubt that there is an easy answer Hannibal.

Recognise that the four claims you reference are written in truther style with these characteristics (among others):
1) They are all single factor technical claims made without reference to a valid context. None of them set in an hypothesis which is prima facie worthy of response.

2) For every one of them the argument is dishonest - all of them use the central tactic of "technical quote-mining" claiming a factor is wrong without stating why it matters - and in each of those four examples it doesn't matter in the overall setting of explaining collapse mechanism.

3) Deliberate ambiguity of objective - viz claiming that NIST was wrong on a factor THEN implying something about the real event. (Remember that NIST reports written years after the event cannot change what really happened. So, if NIST got something wrong, "so what?" It does not change the real event history of 9/11.)

4)Throw in all the usual truther tactics of "lies by inference"; ignoring relevant factors etc etc

PLUS the standard reliance on "reversed burden of proof".

Probably a key point is the "appeal to authority" in the reference to Tony Szamboti.

Tony's nonsense has been comprehensively rebutted many times but scattered widely across this and other forums. Not easy to access for your purposes. I have personally rebutted every one of Tony's claims/papers that I am aware of. Tony's false claims on this girder walk-off have been subject of many posts in this and one other thread. I can summarise if you really need the info. But getting the wealth of information into a compact easily digested from will take some effort.

Instead I suggest you consider why you need the info. Are you responding to a committed AE911Lies supporter? If so why are you responding? In this year of 2013 the chance that you are dealing with a rational honest truther is infinitesimally small. We are a long way past 2006-7-8. Why waste your time?

 

[ozeco41]

Where can I find the claims in this post addressed?

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-s...ical-errors-and-omissions-in-nist-report.html

Thanks.

Forum members...who is David Cole?

Try this:
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=...=any&safe=images&tbs=&as_filetype=&as_rights=

I think it is the same guy.

 

[HannibalGroup]

I doubt that there is an easy answer Hannibal.

Recognise that the four claims you reference are written in truther style with these characteristics (among others):
1) They are all single factor technical claims made without reference to a valid context. None of them set in an hypothesis which is prima facie worthy of response.

2) For every one of them the argument is dishonest - all of them use the central tactic of "technical quote-mining" claiming a factor is wrong without stating why it matters - and in each of those four examples it doesn't matter in the overall setting of explaining collapse mechanism.

3) Deliberate ambiguity of objective - viz claiming that NIST was wrong on a factor THEN implying something about the real event. (Remember that NIST reports written years after the event cannot change what really happened. So, if NIST got something wrong, "so what?" It does not change the real event history of 9/11.)

4)Throw in all the usual truther tactics of "lies by inference"; ignoring relevant factors etc etc

PLUS the standard reliance on "reversed burden of proof".

Probably a key point is the "appeal to authority" in the reference to Tony Szamboti.

Tony's nonsense has been comprehensively rebutted many times but scattered widely across this and other forums. Not easy to access for your purposes. I have personally rebutted every one of Tony's claims/papers that I am aware of. Tony's false claims on this girder walk-off have been subject of many posts in this and one other thread. I can summarise if you really need the info. But getting the wealth of information into a compact easily digested from will take some effort.

Instead I suggest you consider why you need the info. Are you responding to a committed AE911Lies supporter? If so why are you responding? In this year of 2013 the chance that you are dealing with a rational honest truther is infinitesimally small. We are a long way past 2006-7-8. Why waste your time?

Thank you for both the answer and the advice.

 

[ozeco41]

Thank you for both the answer and the advice.

No problem.

 

[jaydeehess]

the four claims you reference are written in truther style with these characteristics (among others):
1) They are all single factor technical claims made without reference to a valid context. None of them set in an hypothesis which is prima facie worthy of response.

3) Deliberate ambiguity of objective - viz claiming that NIST was wrong on a factor THEN implying something about the real event. (Remember that NIST reports written years after the event cannot change what really happened. So, if NIST got something wrong, "so what?" It does not change the real event history of 9/11.)



Instead I suggest you consider why you need the info. Are you responding to a committed AE911Lies supporter? If so why are you responding? In this year of 2013 the chance that you are dealing with a rational honest truther is infinitesimally small. We are a long way past 2006-7-8.

In the case of your points 1 & 3 above, these may have been worthy of debate 5 or 10 years ago. However the supposed technical anomolies have been debated and found wanting of context over many years now. At this late date a community of architects and engineers truly dedicated to exposing a supposed underground conspiracy behind the collapses of three out of seven of the WTC structures most definately should have come up with a valid context, ie. a valid alternative hypothesis of the mechansim by which these structures were brought down.

Yet what we have seen are bits and pieces from minutia like what is found in the dust, primer paint or thermitic material, in which the claimants of thermitic material failed to even demonstrate that this material will oxidize in a no oxygen enviroment, a 'fire spread study' produced in MS Paint (it would seem) by a carpenter and accepted by the AE911T group as valid despite its utter reliance on a simplistic and subjective approach by the author and containing no reference whatsoever to any fire science source, and a paper that 'debunks' Mr. Bazant's paper for being unrealistic and substitutes an equaly unrealistic model going so far as to propose a sequence of collapse for 1 WTC that is obviously incorrect as it is unseen in the videos of the collapse whereas if it is correct it would have been.



At least the later, TS's paper, tries to propose something that approachs what would be an alternative to the commonly accepted history of events in Manhattan. It falls short and fails at what it does propose and is what should have been produced, and expected of, AE911T nigh on a decade ago. It is all but literally, the very least that should have been expected of an engineering community.

On this, I have seen the complaint that we want a hypothesis that accounts for the failure of each weld or bolt and that correctly predicts the final resting place of each. Of course that is not what is required to refute the commonly accepted sequences of collapse. What IS required is a hypothesis that is at least as detailed as the material out there that supports the commonly accepted sequences of collapse and that BETTER matches the docuementary evidence, the many videos and stills, than does the material supporting that which now stands as the more commonly accepted.

Getting to an equally detailed and matching hypothesis DOES NOT make it equally valid as one must overcome the null, that the entire day's events are the result of radical Islamic groups using violence to promote their cause.

,, and in that regard, ohhh how woefully inadequate the response has been!

 

[pgimeno]

Superb, JayDee.

 

[Spanx]

I thought I would put the following link in this thread for you technical people.

http://911blogger.com/news/2013-11-06/nist-replies-stiffeners-inquiry#comments

A very interesting comment from Wildbear.

 

[JSanderO]

I thought I would put the following link in this thread for you technical people.

http://911blogger.com/news/2013-11-06/nist-replies-stiffeners-inquiry#comments

A very interesting comment from Wildbear.

Maybe yes and maybe no.

What ARE their conclusions... the essence of them? If it's that 7+ hrs of uncontrolled fires can cause a steel frame to completely collapse... then their conclusion may likely be correct. But NIST may have focused on the wrong place that kicked off the global collapse. I tend to think so believing that col 79 failure was "down the line" in the progression of cascading failures, not leading it. Some say it doesn't really matter. See the discussion about a single column failure.

So this study my be correct and found some mistake in the girder walk perhaps undermining the NIST theory of column 79 at floor 13 failure. Maybe.

This critique does not propose an alternative initiation location or cause or even comment on girder walk off as a cause initiating global collapse.

 

[ozeco41]

I thought I would put the following link in this thread for you technical people.

http://911blogger.com/news/2013-11-06/nist-replies-stiffeners-inquiry#comments

A very interesting comment from Wildbear.

Wildbear routinely identifies bits of argument going both ways.

As for the critique it seems to make the same error that T Szamboti, enik and others made earlier in this thread. It is the assumption that a single girder could undergo dramatic changes in temperature causing expansions and contractions which can be calculated to fractions of inches. Whilst the remainder of the structure undergoes zero movement due to temperature. The column seats for the girders presumed to remain in exactly their original locations.

So that the differences such as the difference between 5.5" width and 6.0" width determine what happens. Utter bovine faeces.

I happen to hold two silly opinions:
1) That there is no way the supporting columns could remain unaffected by heat AND remaining in exactly its as constructed location whilst the girder was being heated and cooled: AND
2) The revolutionary idea that, since T Sz et al have not proved their claim, it is NOT automatically wrong - simply "not proven" - or "claim not made out".

I think that is the status of debate here. I have attempted to engage Kawika in debate elsewhere - he is obsessed with "prove NIST wrong" and not amenable to reasoned discussion.

We do know that Column 79 must have failed - because the EPH fell;
We do know that the other support structure under EPH must have failed - because the EPH fell;
We do know that NIST has suggested girder walk off. IMO that is plausible but I'm not fussed about whether it is true or not; AND
We also know that JSanderO has proposed another initiating mechanism. It also seems IMO to be a plausible "prima facie" claim.

AND:
A) IMO we will never have definitive proof of those initiating details; AND
B) So what?

 

[jaydeehess]

Ozeco, I take issue with the idea that the girder would have to move its entire width off of the seat in order to fail. Similarly to your idea that col 79 underwent some physical movement or deformity. We have the steel of both a column seat and a girder on it , that is at elevated temperature. However we can also assume that the load at the column seat remained the same as it had been previous to the insults to the structure.
That being the case I fail to see that the girder would not fail at a point at which it had moved laterally on its seat some where between half of the width of the seat and the full width of the seat.
I envision the hot steel edge of the seat and/or the girder deforming as the load is carried by a smaller and smaller contact width.

 

[Robrob]

Ozeco, I take issue with the idea that the girder would have to move its entire width off of the seat in order to fail. Similarly to your idea that col 79 underwent some physical movement or deformity. We have the steel of both a column seat and a girder on it , that is at elevated temperature. However we can also assume that the load at the column seat remained the same as it had been previous to the insults to the structure.
That being the case I fail to see that the girder would not fail at a point at which it had moved laterally on its seat some where between half of the width of the seat and the full width of the seat.
I envision the hot steel edge of the seat and/or the girder deforming as the load is carried by a smaller and smaller contact width.

 

[MileHighMadness]

Couple of simple facts to keep in mind…

• Column 79 was the largest and most heavily loaded column in the building. If you are looking for a suspect for one building member failing, and starting a total progressive collapse of the structure, column 79 has to be number one on your list.

• Girder 44-79 didn’t walk off its support, the connection exploded apart. The bottom 7/8” high strength bolts probably ripped a large piece of the bottom flange out of the girder. Releasing 40-60 tons of built up force, produced by the heat.

• WTC 7 (IMHO) was a poorly framed building. Shear connections between the girder and columns, not full moment connections, which would be required in a seismic zone. The overall structural frame lack redundantly and ductility.

 

[ozeco41]

Ozeco, I take issue with the idea that the girder would have to move its entire width off of the seat in order to fail....

So do I? Or rather so did I throughout the earlier "debates"??

Similarly to your idea that col 79 underwent some physical movement or deformity.

I didn't say that but I would probably have done so. However my point was the defensible one which I may need to state more explicitly:

In a building which has been subject to fires of such magnitude that they result in collapse* I reject arguments about movement of one girder that presume that the columns supporting the ends of the girder did not move. Tony Sz (and many others including those "rebutting" Tony) did accept that assumption of no end column movement. I rejected the arguments on the basis that the assumption was not valid - it was not supported. Note carefully I did not say it was wrong. BUT I find it highly unlikely that it was right. And no more is needed to rebut the claim as "not proven" Hence the reason for my precise pedantry.

(* If anyone wants to "yes but" that on the basis of CD please try. I will respond. )

We have the steel of both a column seat and a girder on it , that is at elevated temperature.

Yes - as I said coming from the opposite direction of logic. You say both were the same. I hinted at that both this time and most previous times I have made the related claims. But came at the issue by negating the implied concept put by others that the heating and temperature effects would be different. Same == "not different"

However we can also assume that the load at the column seat remained the same as it had been previous to the insults to the structure.

We could. I would regard it as an unsafe assumption if I was after logical certainty. BUT I made no such assumption either way. For historic reasons in this debate I stuck strictly to provable fact or supportable reasoned assertions.

That being the case I fail to see that the girder would not fail at a point at which it had moved laterally on its seat some where between half of the width of the seat and the full width of the seat...

I agree - I'm not even fussed by the 0.5 to 1.0 specified. It has been other people making the contrary claims. I have stayed with saying "not proven". I prefer not to go into the range of speculations even though my own speculation would align with yours.

I envision the hot steel edge of the seat and/or the girder deforming as the load is carried by a smaller and smaller contact width.

Yes. A highly probable situation. Not something I commented on this time. I may have referred to it in earlier discussions - cannot remember. I doubt I made a big issue of it - a lot of people were having fun discussing details - so I stayed with the high level position of "claim not proven so I don't need to rebut details".)