thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2012
- Messages
- 1,696
Ahem. The support it had from elsewhere in its pristine, as-built condition. Or did you already forget that the building was on fire?
Total Building Collapse from a Single Column Failure
- Thread starter JSanderO
- Start date
-
- Tags
- wtc collapse wtc7
Ahem. The support it had from elsewhere in its pristine, as-built condition. Or did you already forget that the building was on fire?
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
Your disbelief counts for nothing. For this and other system issues, you are going to have to create a simulation and include fire heating to investigate the question.
Remember that word, system.
Learn it. Live it. Love it.
Good point. The fact that these beams and girders would have been subjected to the fires would cause the girder between C79 and C44 to expand in toward the face of column 79. If I were in the sorry position of trying to defend the NIST report, I don't think this would be a road I would choose to go down. It results in more questions than answers. I would like to see an analysis that would cause 79 to move to the East.
False. That depends what evidence that my disbelief stems from. Unlike defenders of the NIST report such as yourself, my belief is not faith based.
Good idea. You should be asking NIST to do the same kind of analysis and to include the elements that they missed in their first one.
I will do my best to. Thanks for the advice. I will maybe write the word on my hand or something in case I forget it.
MileHighMadness
Muse
Again...you have no evidence.
Last edited:
Ape of Good Hope
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2011
- Messages
- 1,502
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
I see that in addition to System Engineering, clairvoyance is also not your strong suit.
That's right. We have evidence, you should read it.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2014JanLetterPepper.pdf
Incidentally was it you who was saying that WTC7 was not a tube design?
And actually making a point is not yours apparently.
Animal
Master Poster
Animal
Master Poster
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
I made a point. You are wrong about my relationship to the NIST report, and how I go about deciding the validity of claims. I have a high standard of proof - and it's part of my training and profession to be so. I also am not uncritical of NIST.
On the other hand, a failure to approach the problem from a systemic viewpoint leaves the discussion dwelling on irrelevant minutiae. I don't see any action taken to address this.
ETA: well, let's call it barely relevant. and not irrelevant.
Last edited:
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
There's no need to defend it because no one is challenging it. Unless of course you consider posting on obscure internet forums a serious engineering challenge.
You really need to include the engineering world if you want your challenge to be taken seriously.
(my bolding)
How exactly did you judge the relevance of the omissions and errors that are highlighted in the complaint. Have you quantified just what difference they make to NISTs conclusions, or do they just "seem" like they might not matter?
The NIST report is being challenged at the appropriate level, but even if it were not, the truth is the truth regardless of the venue. I do agree with you that no-one on this forum is mounting a serious defense of the NIST collapse initiation hypothesis.
Let's just concentrate on what is being said on this forum for now, rather than supposing where else the issue is or isn't being raised.
Do you understand geometry/trigonometry/vectors, gerrycan? The answer to your question about "restrained" is right there in the diagram.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
That's exactly where it will remain forever. You have nothing they will listen to and you know it. This is the best you got.
I know, it's all bluster from me. Prove me wrong (you won't).
Last edited:
You mean the E12/13 floor plan I presume.
Feel free to make your point about the geometry etc and I will let you know if it is over my head or not.
That's exactly where it will remain forever. You have nothing they will listen to and you know it. This is the best you got.
I know, it's all bluster from me. Prove me wrong (you won't).
There are those in your administration who realise that there are pertinent questions that require an answer from NIST about their WTC7 report. That the errors and omissions exist is not really something that is up for debate here. The extent to which they are relevant to NISTs conclusions is though, and this is something that should be demonstrated by accurate analysis. NIST have not produced an accurate analysis to date re WTC7.
Names, please.