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

[beachnut]

...
He must of read http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610 first.

no

 

[Horatius]

Here's the transcript of the video:

My name's Steven Dusterwald, I'm a licensed professional structural engineer with 37 years of experience in the structural field. I have 25 years of experience as owner and principal of my own structural engineering firm here in Las Vegas. I have focused on nuclear power plant design, large commercial and industrial buildings and utilizing design of all four major structural materials: concrete, steel, masonry and wood.

I first became aware of the problems of the official account of the collapse when I saw a DVD online from Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth. They pointed out various problems with the official story and the ones that caught my attention were the rapid failure of the connections in order for the building to come down at the rate that it did.

Ignore all the technical questions. Lots of people don't have the educational background needed to sort that all out.

Just ask this question: If he's such a good engineer that we should accept his word on this, why did he need a video from A&E911 to show him these problems?

Why didn't he notice these problems on his own, using his "engineering skills"? Did he just miss seeing videos of the collapses for all those years? Videos of the most significant engineering event of modern times? Yeah, right.

 

[ozeco41]

Ignore all the technical questions. Lots of people don't have the educational background needed to sort that all out.

Just ask this question: If he's such a good engineer that we should accept his word on this, why did he need a video from A&E911 to show him these problems?

Why didn't he notice these problems on his own, using his "engineering skills"? Did he just miss seeing videos of the collapses for all those years? Videos of the most significant engineering event of modern times? Yeah, right.

Well picked sir...

So bleeding obvious and...I missed it.

 

[Horatius]

[qimg]http://conleys.com.au/smilies/clap.gif[/qimg] [qimg]http://conleys.com.au/smilies/clap.gif[/qimg]
Well picked sir...

So bleeding obvious and...I missed it.

Thanks! I've decided this is the most important point that we should get across in any discussion of A&E911 - that their entire shtick is nothing more than a giant false appeal to authority. They tout their engineering skills, and yet, none of them have ever demonstrably applied those skills to the issues at hand. They do nothing more than rubberstamp the work of other people, other people who are not engineers. Pretty much every point they bring up in any of their presentations were first discussed by non-engineers, and only later co-opted by A&E911 for their own "work".

 

[ozeco41]

Thanks! I've decided this is the most important point that we should get across in any discussion of A&E911 - that their entire shtick is nothing more than a giant false appeal to authority. They tout their engineering skills, and yet, none of them have ever demonstrably applied those skills to the issues at hand. They do nothing more than rubberstamp the work of other people, other people who are not engineers. Pretty much every point they bring up in any of their presentations were first discussed by non-engineers, and only later co-opted by A&E911 for their own "work".

No problem and agreed respectively

Unusual for me to be so taken by trees that I miss the forest....but I was focussed on the detailed concerns Georgio raised.

And the minor nuisance of a couple of trolling attempts to divert his attention

 

[LSSBB]

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.

+1

We have a non-CD explanation for how the observed part of a collapsing building can reach and exceed free-fall acceleration. Free fall is not evidence of CD and the point can be dismissed.

 

[JSanderO]

It should be noted that not all engineers or candlestick makers are created equally. And this includes licensed structural engineers. They run the gambit from brilliant to bumbling idiots with most falling in the middle of the bell shaped curve.

What I think we see a lot of is "professionals" and researchers from the incompetent end of the curve doing independent research on 9/11.

One needs also to understand why someone who choose to undertake 9/11 "technical" research on their own. It would be safe to say that the vast majority of those who take on research, write papers and produce CDs, youtubes, power points etc. are doing so because they don't accept the official explanation or the over arching political frame of 9/11 ie the attack was done by Arab radicals who hijacked jet liners. I don't think you find too many independent researchers who feel motivated to confirm or further the technical explanations... or undermined the basic political frame.

It's telling because most of these presentations such as Yankee's and Dusterwald's and the TX architect whose name is Avery I believe all insert their political frame into their presentation and their motivation is apparently less to find the proper explanation or advance our understanding of the event and more to undermine the political frame and demonstrate that it was a big bad government or shadow government (rogue?) operation done as a false flag complete of course with cover story and and fake technical reports.

Ironically, the official technical reports can be and probably ARE flawed in their details, but correct in the political frame and in the fundamental causes of the total destruction of the three buildings. Unfortunately from my perspective NIST did not perform an NTSB level accident report and had to offer theoretical models which are lacking. It's kinda like there was a horrible car accident and the investigator said the brakes failed... but the reason may have been an oil slick or the person fell asleep or some other cause difficult to determine with a very detailed forensic examination of the wreckage. Bottom line, the car was out of control and that was enough to total it when it hit the light pole.

Since building fires are not uncommon and total building collapses are virtually unseen the explanation seems to be important to identify how it happened. Of course two of the towers experienced the never before event of having a fast moving jumbo slam into them.

The event had a range of science lessons (mostly engineering and physics) for the public, but a fair amount of them are beyond the grasp of 99.99% of the people... and that includes engineers and even a Nobel prize winner in biology who showed you can be an award winning scientist and be out of your depth when it comes to physics and engineer. I don't think NIST help educate the public and professional about these matters, although this was not part of their mandate.

Unfortunately the response to 9/11 caused more death and suffering and reduction of our civil liberties. But that has nothing to do with the technical explanations for the destruction at the WTC.

 

[NoahFence]

As a new poster I should probably say that I do not yet have a strong opinion one way or the other on the events of 9/11.

LOL

First time I've heard that!

Actually, it's not.

 

[Richard the G]

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

You dont have to understand it to question it. You dont even have to read it to question it. Just make up some questions and assertions. You will be in good company.

 

[ozeco41]

You dont have to understand it to question it. You dont even have to read it to question it. Just make up some questions and assertions. You will be in good company.

I doubt that is sound advice for Georgio to question the NIST report on the basis that he "will be in good company".

Surely he would get better results pursuing his original objective - critique of the Dusterwald video. If that was still his target he would truly be in "good company" here on JREF.

 

[Georgio]

The buildings at the World Trade Center, that did not occur. The connections failed first, without any of the members exhibiting large deformations or deflections over 400 connections per second had to fail in order for the members to be released and for the structure to descend at almost free-fall rate.

OK. Put bluntly he is wrong. The "large deformations that are visible and apparent to the occupants of the structure" did occur, were "visible and apparent" For WTC7 the "visible and apparent" was to external observers - the occupants had evacuated.

But the point he is making is that the members were designed to fail in a certain way, and before the connections, under certain conditions, and they did not fail in that way under those conditions.

And from the NIST report, pdf page 49:

...the 4,000 occupants of WTC 7 reacted to the airplane impacts on the two WTC towers and began evacuating before there was significant damage to WTC 7.

So it doesn't matter that the reason for the members being designed like that, to give the occupants of the structure warning that the structure was compromised and to evacuate it, happened to have been satisfied by something else, namely what people could observe happening to other buildings from the inside of WTC7 and what external observers could observe happening to WTC7.

It's like saying there's nothing wrong with a metal detector that failed to sound when it went over a gun in someone's belt because the person using the metal detector happened to see the gun. The desired outcome of using the metal detector was achieved by other means than the metal detector, and the alerting of the occupants of the structure to the impending failure of the structure, which was meant to be achieved by the design of the members to fail before the connections, was accomplished by different means - namely that people saw what was happening to WTC1 and WTC2 and that WTC7 was seen by external observers to be being damaged by falling debris.

The salient point is that the members should have failed first and didn't, according to Dusterwald that is.

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.

Could I ask that you actually do this (at your leisure, of course)? That is to say, could you explain this error comprehensively, without worrying about my or anyone on here's expertise level, as though you were talking to Steven Dusterwald?

I would then, with your permission, try to get the explanation to him somehow to see what he says.

 

[DGM]

But the point he is making is that the members were designed to fail in a certain way, and before the connections, under certain conditions, and they did not fail in that way under those conditions.


I would then, with your permission, try to get the explanation to him somehow to see what he says.

Why not just ask him to substantiate his claim? This shouldn't be too hard.

Why do listen to what they say and then ask someone to prove it wrong? Shouldn't you ask them for the evidence that they're right?

 

[beachnut]

...
The salient point is that the members should have failed first and didn't, according to Dusterwald that is.
...

The point is Dusterwald has a the fantasy of CD, and chasing his claims are nonsense. Do you believe in CD?
Gage's experts are full of nonsense. What about the other claptrap you left without comment?

 

[ozeco41]

Could I ask that you actually do this (at your leisure, of course)?..

Of course you can ask...but first ask yourself why you are critiquing my post using careful thought when you are not subjecting Dusterwalds statements with the same level of scrutiny.

However let me see if I can achieve something briefly. <<<EDIT: that was wishful thinking...

That is to say, could you explain this error comprehensively..... as though you were talking to Steven Dusterwald?

OK - remember you set the scenario as if I was "talking to Steven Dusterwald".

My initial thoughts would be to give him opportunity to revise his analysis without unduly embarrassing him. I have managed many engineers and Dusterwald's main error is not unusual for a small sector of the population demographic. He is focused on applying the rules in a standard method and gets completely out of his depth when confronted with a scenario that is not in the "Engineering for Dummies" standard "follow the dots" text book. The main issue if I was to try to help him would arise if I confronted all aspects of his errors in a "broadside" attack. It would almost certainly cause him to dig in and deny.. No progress there.

So what is wrong with his claims? Quite a lot BUT the central error - foundation error - is that he quotes design standards which foreshadow progressive elastic >> plastic >> gradual distortion failure which allows for occupant escape.

That much is true. Sure it is partial truth but it is true to the extent he wants to use it.

BUT it is a scenario envisaging progressive overload under reasonably foreseeable conditions. Slowly and progressively applied overloads due to EITHER load increases OR component weakening (corrosion/rust/fire). It is definitely and specifically not intended to prevent or slow down collapse under a scenario of massive induced trauma.

So that is the base error and most of his false conclusions flow from it.

So a few technical pointers:

The basic philosophy of the building code in the last 75 to 80 years has been to ensure ductile failure of the members to provide for the public safety. Under this philosophy, members that are overloaded will deform elastically, within the elastic range of the material, with increasingly large deformations and deflections and after the yield point the members reach it will go into a plastic range, where the steel stretches without any increase in load. This gives rise to large deformations that are visible and apparent to the occupants of the structure, giving them warning of impending failure and gives them evidence of structural distress in progress, and again this gives them time to evacuate the structure.

He correctly quotes the text book for foreseeable "normal" conditions.

The buildings at the World Trade Center, that did not occur. The connections failed first, without any of the members exhibiting large deformations or deflections over 400 connections per second had to fail in order for the members to be released and for the structure to descend at almost free-fall rate.

He more or less identifies what happened BUT his focus on "connections first" is setting the ground for him to derail himself - if he hasn't already.

The actual failure mode of the structure showed that the connections were failing at over 400 connections per second for building number 7 and a similar number for buildings 1 and 2.

Adds nothing to a proper argument - adds some circumstantial support to the false trail he has embarked on.

This is in direct physical contradiction to the design of the building which ensured that the members went through large elastic and plastic deformations before the connections would fail.

He falls for his own trap. The design of the building did not envisage massive trauma intervention by malicious attack.

In fact the connections were designed with a safety factor of 1.5 to 3 times the failure load for the member.

Adds nothing to a proper argument - adds some circumstantial support to the false trail he has embarked on.

This ensures that the member will always fail first, first in an elastic mode and then a plastic mode,

Only under the designed scenario of a gradual overloading from increased load or progressive weakening of the members.

and after the member has failed then the connection would still be intact.

That is a side track. It is most likely false but could be true. Reality is that connections are not usually stronger than the members they join. Too much detail for what we need now.

He has taken himself off track and set a trap for him to fall into.

Which he does:

So the failure of all these connections as the primary means¹ of structural failure is inconsistent with a natural gravitational collapse² and indicates the presence of other agents³[/B] which would dismember these connections⁴[/B].

1 He hasn't established that by his argument so far.
2 Ditto - not established.
3 Ditto - far too big a quantum leap there. Typical truther "I don't understand THEREFORE CD."
4 Wrong presumption as to likely point of attack for CD.

OK That should be enough for you to start thinking.

I could list his full transcript and index the multiple errors he makes - most resulting from his wrong starting premises. Ask if you want the full point by point indexed critique.

Over to you for comment.

I would then, with your permission, try to get the explanation to him somehow to see what he says.

What I've posted is in Public Domain. I have no interest in embarrassing him. Show him my main point and let him go into a quiet corner to think. Don't be surprised if he cannot progress it. Engineers with a lifetime experience - a long professional career - based on following the standard methods by plugging in the numbers usually cannot change the thought processes of a lifetime.

 

[Redwood]

But the point he is making is that the members were designed to fail in a certain way, and before the connections, under certain conditions, and they did not fail in that way under those conditions.

Originally Posted by Dusterwald
The buildings at the World Trade Center, that did not occur. The connections failed first, without any of the members exhibiting large deformations or deflections over 400 connections per second had to fail in order for the members to be released and for the structure to descend at almost free-fall rate.

The salient point is that the members should have failed first and didn't, according to Dusterwald that is.

Could I ask that you actually do this (at your leisure, of course)? That is to say, could you explain this error comprehensively, without worrying about my or anyone on here's expertise level, as though you were talking to Steven Dusterwald?

I would then, with your permission, try to get the explanation to him somehow to see what he says.

I am not a structural engineer, but I understand pretty well what happened. At the collapse initiation points, at or near the impacts, the connections did not fail. The floor joists pulled the columns inwards to the point of failure. There are a few spectacularly deformed columns such as this one, but only a few.

As the collapse progressed, the failure points were the connectors between the floor joists and the columns: 5/8" and 7/8" bolts, and welded-on clips. These were torn out, sheared, bent, or otherwise destroyed. Funny, no one reported any signs of blast damage! I have no clue as to why Dusterwald would think that columns should fail before the bolts and clips under a dynamic force vastly greater than the ordinary static load of the floors, and I'm pretty sure that competent structural engineers don't, either.

The columns below the initiation point were in fact slightly deformed, though at first glance, they appear intact except for the bolt connections between the columns having failed. Once the floor joists were ripped out, the columns lacked lateral stabilization and they buckled, failing at the bolt connections.

If Dusterwald doesn't understand this, IMNSHO he has no business being a structural engineer!

 

[LSSBB]

Why not just ask him to substantiate his claim? This shouldn't be too hard.

Why do listen to what they say and then ask someone to prove it wrong? Shouldn't you ask them for the evidence that they're right?

There's that null vs. alternative hypothesis again. Why do CTers not get this? Oh yeah, at the point they do, they generally stop being CTers.

I am not a structural engineer, but I understand pretty well what happened. At the collapse initiation points, at or near the impacts, the connections did not fail. The floor joists pulled the columns inwards to the point of failure. There are a few spectacularly deformed columns such as this one, but only a few.

As the collapse progressed, the failure points were the connectors between the floor joists and the columns: 5/8" and 7/8" bolts, and welded-on clips. These were torn out, sheared, bent, or otherwise destroyed. Funny, no one reported any signs of blast damage! I have no clue as to why Dusterwald would think that columns should fail before the bolts and clips under a dynamic force vastly greater than the ordinary static load of the floors, and I'm pretty sure that competent structural engineers don't, either.

The columns below the initiation point were in fact slightly deformed, though at first glance, they appear intact except for the bolt connections between the columns having failed. Once the floor joists were ripped out, the columns lacked lateral stabilization and they buckled, failing at the bolt connections.

If Dusterwald doesn't understand this, IMNSHO he has no business being a structural engineer!

Great pics!

 

[DGM]

There's that null vs. alternative hypothesis again. Why do CTers not get this? Oh yeah, at the point they do, they generally stop being CTers.

Until it goes full circle and they figure a way to make a buck from it. Strange the believers don't have a problem with this.

 

[leftysergeant]

I do not understand how he thinks that the connections had to all fail at once, or in those numbers.

So the building is designed to fail slowly and one member will be left hanging out there not doing its job. The building is still in jeopardy of falling, right?

What the hell is the idiot's point?

 

[Georgio]

...foundation error – is that he quotes design standards which foreshadow progressive elastic >> plastic >> gradual distortion failure which allows for occupant escape.

But it is a scenario envisaging progressive overload under reasonably foreseeable conditions. Slowly and progressively applied overloads due to EITHER load increases OR component weakening (corrosion/rust/fire). It is definitely and specifically not indented to prevent or slow down collapse under a scenario of massive induced trauma.

But isn't progressive overload under reasonably foreseeable conditions (fire) what is actually meant to have caused WTC7 to fail? The NIST report says WTC7 would have collapsed from the fires even if the structure had not been damaged. Do you agree with that NIST statement?

This is in direct physical contradiction to the design of the building which ensured that the members went through large elastic and plastic deformations before the connections would fail.

He falls for his own trap. The design of the building did not envisage massive trauma intervention by malicious attack.

I don't think I understand this. What is 'trauma intervention'?

This ensures that the member will always fail first, first in an elastic mode and then a plastic mode.

Only under the designed scenario of a gradual overloading from increased load or progressive weakening of the members.

But, again, isn't this what is supposed to have happened to building 7? According to NIST pdf page 48:

Even without the initial structural damage caused by debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires having the same characteristics as those experienced on September 11, 2001.

 

[beachnut]

... I don't think I understand this. What is 'trauma intervention'?


But, again, isn't this what is supposed to have happened to building 7? According to NIST pdf page 48:

Trauma? 10 terrorists flying two planes with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel into the Towers. The towers collapse, knock a big hole, break windows in WTC7. The water system, electrical system broke. No water to fight WTC 7, firefighters missing, dead, murdered by terrorists. Windows broken means the fire had air, fire burns for hours. The biggest fires not fought in the history, and Gage makes up lies about 911. How sweet, making money off the murder of thousands. Apologizing for terrorists with delusions, and lies.

How does Gage find idiots to talk videos of woo. Your other video thread transcript expert had no clue how the WTC was built.