What are your thoughts on Steven Dusterwald's AE911Truth Video?

[ozeco41]

Also, how would it be ensured that the members will always fail before the connections - is it to do with the materials used? And is it indeed true that this is done in every modern building, as he implies?

It isn't; no it isn't materials; no it is not true for all buildings.

Please read both my previous posts. Your questions already answered.

And what's he actually referring to when he says 'connection' and is there a diagram of it available for the case of building 7?...

He is writing "engineeringese" -- language intended to look like valid engineering to fool gullible lay persons. He is wrong.

Don't fall for the trap of chasing his details on connections. As a lay person you don't need to grasp the engineering details and it is a significant learning curve to be able to see how he is distorting the truth.

That said - if you want to take it on point by point then use my second post - the "brief critique" to point yourself in the right direction THEN ask for more details.

 

[beachnut]



I just typed up the video verbatim. His statement about the connections needs substantiating.

Also, how would it be ensured that the members will always fail before the connections - is it to do with the materials used? And is it indeed true that this is done in every modern building, as he implies?

And what's he actually referring to when he says 'connection' and is there a diagram of it available for the case of building 7?



I'm pretty sure I'm not.

I thought you were Steven Dusterwald. Steven has a lot of woo after 12 years?

Fire did WTC 7 in. Fire, and poor Steven has no clue Gage is full of nonsense. Gage took lies from 911 truth and has made a business selling woo, with the theme of, "we need a new investigation". Gage has to hop you never read NIST, or the many other investigation into 911.

If you want new investigation go help Steven, because I don't need to spend more money for a building which burned all day to figure out steel fails in fire. 911 truth, all of 911 truth is bogus.

You need to ask Steven why he is fooled by lies pushed by Gage. Are you?

 

[Georgio]

Please read both my previous posts. Your questions already answered.

Thanks ozeco41, I did read the posts but didn't understand them very well. I'll go over them again soon.

Don't fall for the trap of chasing his details on connections. As a lay person you don't need to grasp the engineering details and it is a significant learning curve to be able to see how he is distorting the truth.

I think it's vital that lay people like me make a genuine effort to understand all the engineering arguments properly. How long is that NIST report again?

That said - if you want to take it on point by point then use my second post - the "brief critique" to point yourself in the right direction THEN ask for more details.

I would really appreciate the most detailed analysis possible, specifically on Dusterwald's connections question with regard to building 7, the more detailed the better. Don't worry about going into technicalities or linking to technical material, the worst that can happen is it'll be a VERY long time before I respond!

You need to ask Steven why he is fooled by lies pushed by Gage. Are you?

I don't know enough about the subject yet to have a valid opinion. I need to do a lot more work in order to understand whether or not the claims made by Gage and others might have any weight to them.

 

[ozeco41]

Thanks ozeco41, I did read the posts but didn't understand them very well. I'll go over them again soon.

No problem - I wrote quickly at what I judged to be 'high side of medium' level - just so you could ask for more explanation.

I can translate to simpler BUT obviously we need to take it one bit at a time.

I think it's vital that lay people like me make a genuine effort to understand all the engineering arguments properly. How long is that NIST report again?

My advice is forget NIST - and remember I suggested start with WTC1 and WTC2. Those two are easier than WTC7 because all the evidence you really need is visible.

Remember also my comment that the truth movement tries to force attention onto WTC 7 for the very reason that it is harder. They don't want the truth to emerge - "No CD"

I would really appreciate the most detailed analysis possible, specifically on Dusterwald's connections question with regard to building 7, the more detailed the better. Don't worry about going into technicalities or linking to technical material, the worst that can happen is it'll be a VERY long time before I respond!

I understand but remember my advice. That said I'll give it some thought over the next day or so. There is little point feeding you details if you cannot digest them. And a lot of engineers get it wrong.

I don't know enough about the subject yet to have a valid opinion. I need to do a lot more work in order to understand whether or not the claims made by Gage and others might have any weight to them.

Therein is your bind. You either accept what someone says or you need to understand for yourself. and either way has barriers.

 

[DGM]

My advice is forget NIST

Seconded. The reports were not written for the layman. They were also not written to "debunk" a conspiracy.

Besides that. We're talking about 15,000 pages.

 

[beachnut]

... I don't know enough about the subject yet to have a valid opinion. I need to do a lot more work in order to understand whether or not the claims made by Gage and others might have any weight to them.

richard gage architects and engineers for 911 truth have nothing to study, it is all made up nonsense. Proof, richard gage architects and engineers for 911 truth have no papers on the subject. richard gage architects and engineers for 911 truth make 300, 400, 500 thousand dollars a year giving talks, taking donations planting "we need a new investigation" in the minds of the gullible.

Studying richard gage architects and engineers for 911 truth's work as engineering, is like studying Bigfoot as part of the animal world. You are wasting time answering questions which are part of a Gish Gallop, moving the goal posts exercise by richard gage architects and engineers for 911 truth to keep richard gage architects and engineers for 911 truth's dumbed down donations coming. Amazing richard gage architects and engineers for 911 truth can keep a straight face as richard gage architects and engineers for 911 truth repeat idiotic lies during richard gage architects and engineers for 911 truth's presentation.

One way to debunk Gage is take one of his claims and follow the trail of sources, and you find Gage has nothing. I find lay people to be the smartest for seeing Gage is fraud. Reading comprehension is enough to debunk Gage, and this video you posted which has nothing but talk, and some made up stuff, almost like Bigfoot, no evidence, only delusions of an old engineer who can't figure out 911 given the answers and 12 years.

Fire did it, and richard gage architects and engineers for 911 truth is hoping their tap dancing with 911 truth lies will bring in the bucks - Or richard gage architects and engineers for 911 truth are dumber than a box of rocks and they believes their own delusional fantasy. $$$ or dumb - which is it?

Any lay person can see the video is BS.

 

[Childlike Empress]

How long is that NIST report again?

The WTC7 report (NIST NCSTAR 1A) comes at a rather easily understandable 130 pages you should definitely read for a start. You find it here.

Additional WTC7 details are in the documents NCSTAR 1-9 and 1-9A you can find at the end of this list. They contain the modeling details and come at around an additional 1000 pages you can study if you want to dive into specific details, but don't have to. But the 130 pages of 1A are a must (unknown to the people who tell you not to read them because they didn't do so themselves).

 

[ergo]

I don't know enough about the subject yet to have a valid opinion. I need to do a lot more work in order to understand whether or not the claims made by Gage and others might have any weight to them.

With all due respect, what's not to understand, Georgio? There isn't really any debate here. It is impossible for a building to free fall through itself without having all its supports simultaneously removed -- which is why controlled demolition companies exist. Those who support the official assertion (and there seem to be very few willing to publicly defend it) are damaging their professional credibility. Even if large failure were to initiate, which it wouldn't from the tiny fires WTC 7 suffered, the building's redundant column structure would alter or halt the process. It's a no-brainer.

Fortunately, we don't have to argue from (justified) incredulity anymore. Researchers have identified clear points of technical negligence on NIST's part which could be prosecutable.

 

[Spanx]

Fortunately, we don't have to argue from (justified) incredulity anymore. Researchers have identified clear points of technical negligence on NIST's part which could be prosecutable.

How's that going ?

 

[DGM]

How's that going ?

He means "prosecutable" if they could convince anyone there was a case.

They need a new investigation to find this case. Get with the program, man.

 

[Georgio]

The WTC7 report (NIST NCSTAR 1A) comes at a rather easily understandable 130 pages you should definitely read for a start.

Thank you, I'll do that.

 

[jaydeehess]

Building number 7 descended in free-fall for the first 100 feet which means that there was absolutely no resistance for the descent whatsoever, and this is inconsistent with the energy redistribution that would be required from the descending mass to the remaining structure.
. .

Wow! Getting that so very very wrong, why would we accept anything else he says?

 

[jaydeehess]

With all due respect, what's not to understand, Georgio? There isn't really any debate here. It is impossible for a building to free fall through itself without having all its supports simultaneously removed -- which is why controlled demolition companies exist. Those who support the official assertion (and there seem to be very few willing to publicly defend it) are damaging their professional credibility. Even if large failure were to initiate, which it wouldn't from the tiny fires WTC 7 suffered, the building's redundant column structure would alter or halt the process. It's a no-brainer.

Fortunately, we don't have to argue from (justified) incredulity anymore. Researchers have identified clear points of technical negligence on NIST's part which could be prosecutable.

The hilted part keeps being asserted but so far no supporting work for that claim.

The structure had one point on its face measured to ramp up to, and through, free fall, spending 2.25 seconds at or above 'g'. That 2.25 seconds occurring several seconds after the final, north face, collapse began, and 12+ seconds after interior collapse had first been obvious with the collapse of the east penthouse.

 

[ozeco41]

Wow! Getting that so very very wrong, why would we accept anything else he says?

I identified 15 "points of interest" in my brief critique at post 11. i.e. bits where the author is blatantly wrong.

There is a level of irony that Georgio says he didn't understand my post but takes a recommendation from CE to read NIST.

"Here - if you cannot read pre-digested stuff written down to grade school level - you should find it easier to go and read the graduate level source material". Seems arse about to me.

I pre-digested the paper he is concerned about. What odds on him taking raw source NIST AND correctly relating it to the Dusterwald nonsense.

Then we have Ergo the Opportunist trying to muddy the waters for our new member.



I'll wait and see.

 

[jaydeehess]

I identified 15 "points of interest" in my brief critique at post 11. i.e. bits where the author is blatantly wrong.

There is a level of irony that Georgio says he didn't understand my post but takes a recommendation from CE to read NIST.

"Here - if you cannot read pre-digested stuff written down to grade school level - you should find it easier to go and read the graduate level source material". Seems arse about to me.

I pre-digested the paper he is concerned about. What odds on him taking raw source NIST AND correctly relating it to the Dusterwald nonsense.

Then we have Ergo the Opportunist trying to muddy the waters for our new member.



I'll wait and see.

Yeah saw both your post and the surprising CE recommendation.

An equally confused person is 'debating' a topic of nuke physics over on t'other forum. Seems he's also a truther, go figure!

 

[ozeco41]

An equally confused person is 'debating' a topic of nuke physics over on t'other forum. Seems he's also a truther, go figure!

Yes. Plus the interesting dynamic of spamming the forum by the two invasive "aviation x spurts" - who have no intention of discussing the "So what's" - and the resident trolls have not realised - yet - that they have a 'territory dispute".

 

[ozeco41]

Yeah saw both your post and the surprising CE recommendation.

Yes - I read the CE recommendation as a move with positive intent. However the level of the NIST documents is way beyond what we see of Georgie's comprehension level at this stage. So I'll put my technical teacher's hat back on the rack for now. Ball in his court for now.

I'm still busy trying to coach d.w.

And, in case you missed the in thread comment, I've requested a thread split on Sanders "single column failure" thread.

 

[Georgio]

There is a level of irony that Georgio says he didn't understand my post but takes a recommendation from CE to read NIST.

I said I would read it, I never said I'd understand it!

 

[ozeco41]

I said I would read it, I never said I'd understand it!

No problem. If you do understand it you can help me out so take your time.

I've just been trying to work through it myself to solve an issue for JSanderO - its heavy going.

The big issue is that they give so much detail when the need we see here in forum discussion is for broad concepts.

Take the example of Dusterwald's confusion over the relationship between connection failures and member failures.

I doubt I can explain that in less than a few hundred words. And I'm the experienced technical teacher.

The big issue for a lot of engineers discussing WTC 9/11 failures is that they are accustomed to applying standard methods to build safe buildings that do not fall down.

Understanding how buildings do in fact fall down after major trauma is about two orders more complex. And add another if you need to explain it rather than simply comprehend it for yourself. So the practicing engineers are very often way outside their comfort zone discussing failures such as those at WTC on 9/11.

And, by the way, it matters not whether we have CD in the "mix" or not - it is only one extra detail.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Thank you, I'll do that.

You're welcome. If you let people predigest something for you, you might end up with dung. Don't be intimidated by the technobabble. Just try to understand the methodology. What are they doing?