CD = Free Fall?

[sylvan8798]

AW Smith: "If the bolts (the weakest link) were sheared, The column ends wouldn't be significantly deformed nor show evidence of being ripped apart. Therefore very little energy would be sapped away in crushing, deforming, bending columns."

Do you know of any evidence regarding what force could have sheared column sections apart above Floor 13?

How would that help you? Do you really think you are somehow going to prove that the dynamic forces exerted by the collapsing building were not enough to shear the column connection bolts?

 

[A W Smith]

@ AW Smith: I didn't see an answer to my question, "Was there evidence of unsupported columns?", which was in reference to your statement.

Yes there was, The kink and fall of the east penthouse directly over column 79

According to FEMA, there was a WTC solid steel girder that had been turned into 'swiss cheese'. That is potentially evidence of some sort of incendiary or explosive involved in the collapse of WTC 7, as I'm not aware of a way in which burning papers and desks in WTC 7 would have cause that. Are you?

Eutectic erosion explains it better than a silent CD which left no evidence (white crust) of a therm*te reaction. Also explosives commonly don't erode "solid steel girders". Are there any other kind of girders? Or is this another example of the Richard Gage style of hyperbole? . And fema didn't investigate the collapse of building seven as thoroughly as NIST did. Perhaps you neglected to read the NIST report. http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861611

However, since the NIST investigation refused to test for any such materials, we have no way of knowing without a proper investigation---which is what I'm calling for. Do you have any objection to a new investigation with full public transparency and peer review of all data?

Not enough industry professionals question the results of the investigation to warrant a new one the results of which would be hand waved away if the results didn't fit into the beliefs of a handful of conspiracy peddlers who exist mainly on the internet.

Are you certain that the shearing of bolts wouldn't leave evidence marks on the flanges of the columns in and/or around the holes? As long as the US Government refuses to actually examine any of the structural steel, we're left in the dark a bit.

They didnt refuse. they could not identify the location in the building of the structural steel components. Therefore any such investigation would prove useless.

 

[A W Smith]

AW Smith: "If the bolts (the weakest link) were sheared, The column ends wouldn't be significantly deformed nor show evidence of being ripped apart. Therefore very little energy would be sapped away in crushing, deforming, bending columns."

Do you know of any evidence regarding what force could have sheared column sections apart above Floor 13?

yes, yes i do, Loss of lateral support for the column below.

 

[Shoof]

@ AW SMith:

Thanks again for your thoughtful insights and perspectives.

Allow me to clarify---was there evidence of unsupported perimeter columns?

 

[Shoof]

In no particular order of importance, here are some preliminary questions:

1) According to the NIST computer simulation of the WTC 7 demolition, global collapse could not manifest until raging fires had burned continuously for 4 hours. If, as the NIST report stated, there were only enough burnable materials to sustain a fire for 20-30 minutes in any given area, how is it that fires burned long enough to initiate demolition?

2) Regarding the thermal expansion that allegedly initiated the girder unseating from Column 79, did the NIST report exhibit scientific integrity by excluding thermal conductivity from their simulation?

3) Regarding the thermal expansion that allegedly initiated the girder unseating from Column 79, did the NIST report exhibit scientific integrity by only applying heat to Column 79---and not the connecting floor system---in their computer simulation?

4) Doesn't the NIST report acknowledge that steel and concrete have virtually the same coefficient of thermal expansion?

5) The NIST report stated that they tested no actual steel from WTC 7, even though some existed. Does this exhibit scientific integrity?

6) The NIST stated that they did not test for fire incendiaries/explosives. Does this exhibit scientific integrity in an impartial investigation into the demolition of WTC 7, given that no steel-framed high rise building had ever before collapsed due to fire?

7) Does the verifiable evidence that the NIST report presents show that the fires burned long and hot enough to meet the four hire fire requirement exhibited by their computer model?

8) Do we know which way the 58 perimeter columns allegedly buckled, or is that an unknown?

9) What was the cause of the alleged buckling of the 58 perimeter columns? Were they significantly weakened by the fires?

10) If floors disconnected from the interior columns due to thermal expansion, what caused the interior columns' demolition? Were the interior columns significantly weakened by fires?

11) If the composite floor systems broke free from the interior columns and fell downward, as alleged by the NIST report, why wasn't there visible evidence of distortion in the perimeter walls when this occurred?

12) If the composite floor systems broke free from the interior columns and fell downward, as alleged by the NIST report, what cause the 24 interior columns to be demolished?

13) Was there verifiable evidence of unsupported perimeter columns?

 

[Shoof]

AW Smith: "And fema didn't investigate the collapse of building seven as thoroughly as NIST did."

As a whole, you are correct. Relative to the issue of a solid steel girder , the NIST report ignored this piece of evidence.

While your point that NIST alleges that they couldn't identify it's prior location in WTC 7 is duly noted, is this meant to imply that doing a chemical analysis would have certainly been without merit, or just possibly without merit?

 

[Oystein]

Welcome to the forum, Shoof!

I notice that you write up in the form of many questions issues that really are claims. For example, you write:

1) According to the NIST computer simulation of the WTC 7 demolition, global collapse could not manifest until raging fires had burned continuously for 4 hours. If, as the NIST report stated, there were only enough burnable materials to sustain a fire for 20-30 minutes in any given area, how is it that fires burned long enough to initiate demolition?

When really you are making a claim:

"According to the NIST computer simulation of the WTC 7 demolition, global collapse could not manifest until raging fires had burned continuously for 4 hours. Since, as the NIST report stated, there were only enough burnable materials to sustain a fire for 20-30 minutes in any given area, fires did not burn long enough to initiate demolition."​

Another example, you wrote:

2) Regarding the thermal expansion that allegedly initiated the girder unseating from Column 79, did the NIST report exhibit scientific integrity by excluding thermal conductivity from their simulation?

But you are really masking a claim here:

"Regarding the thermal expansion that allegedly initiated the girder unseating from Column 79, the NIST report did not exhibit scientific integrity by excluding thermal conductivity from their simulation."​

We could and shoukd do the same with all your questions: reformulate them as claims that you make.

The important difference is: By asking questions, you put the burden on us to disproof your claims, when really it would be your job to support your claims first.

So please, Shoof, could you rewrite your questions as claims, and then procede by supporting each claim with supporting citations (for example, where in the NIST reports did you read that "global collapse could not manifest until raging fires had burned continuously for 4 hours") and where did you read in the NIST report that "there were only enough burnable materials to sustain a fire for 20-30 minutes in any given area". Having thus established that the premises of your questions are supported by fact, you should then procede to explain why you think that 20-30 minutes sustained fire in any given area is not enough to initiate demoltion.
Having thusly made your claims clear and well supported, we can then discuss them thoroughly.



Further, since this will require a lot of work on your part as well as ours,I recommend that you don't seek to debate all your 13 "preliminary" issues "in no particular order" and all at once, but instead try to focus on one issue at a time. Maybe you should focus on the one claim that you personally find most damning for the "US Government conspiracy theory".

You see, I presume you believe the "US Government conspiracy theory" is all wrong and some theory of CD must be correct because you believe that all your 13 claims are correct. I think that once you find in due order that your strongest claim is not in fact true, and then find that your second strongest claim is not in fact true, and then find that your third strongest claim is not in fact true, that we then don't need to g through the other ten and more claims.


May I ask what the source is for the list of claims you make? I believe that once you learn that the, say, three claims that you personally find most convincing are not in fact true, that you will then have learned that your source is not trustworthy. Hopefully, you will then abandon that source and its claims altoigether and see it as what it really is: A source of woo.

 

[cjnewson88]

^^ What Oystein said.

One at a time, state your claim, provide your evidence to support, and then we can work at them without massive walls of txt focused on 13 different questions.

Your turn Shoof.

btw, will Oystein get that $1000 at the end of this?

 

[Oystein]

^^ What Oystein said.

One at a time, state your claim, provide your evidence to support, and then we can work at them without massive walls of txt focused on 13 different questions.

Your turn Shoof.

btw, will Oystein get that $1000 at the end of this?

$1000? I thought a million??

ETA: Ohhh!! Now I get the $1000 reference

 

[LSSBB]

Thanks for your input.

How substantive is the difference?

If the steel girder was connected to the support flange of Column 79, is there scientific integrity in not applying any heat to the composite floor system, of which the girder is a component, nor having any thermal conductivity to a connected floor system that is both metal and concrete?

1% Carbon Steel has a thermal conductivity of 43 k - W/(m.K)

For the following concrete types it is much less (same units):

Concrete, lightweight 0.1 - 0.3
Concrete, medium 0.4 - 0.7
Concrete, dense 1.0 - 1.8
Concrete, stone 1.7

You can try this in your back yard. Put a piece of steel next to a piece of concrete in the sunlight and see which one warms up quicker.

ETA: Note that Thermal Conductivity and Coefficient of Expansion are different concepts. Where the coefficient of expansions may be similar between steel and concrete, that is only useful in the concept of the fire if the materials are getting the heat into them at the same rate, which they are not in this case due to the differences in Thermal Conductivity

 

[Shoof]

Hi Oystein,

Thanks for the input on formulating my questions for you.

Are you making the implicit claim that the NIST investigation followed common standards of scientific integrity and investigation?

I look forward to our continued dialogue.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Hi Oystein,

Thanks for the input on formulating my questions for you.

Are you making the implicit claim that the NIST investigation followed common standards of scientific integrity and investigation?

I look forward to our continued dialogue.

Shoof,

Apologies for joining the chorus here, but if you have a claim, please state it. If you won't even define your position, then there seems little point in any discussion of it.

Dave

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Hi Oystein,

Thanks for the input on formulating my questions for you.

Are you making the implicit claim that the NIST investigation followed common standards of scientific integrity and investigation?

I look forward to our continued dialogue.

Why do I sense a "do you still beat your wife" slanting in the phrasing of this question here?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Why do I sense a "do you still beat your wife" slanting in the phrasing of this question here?

That's exactly why an actual statement of a position is important. Starting a debate with nothing but questions has two potential pernicious effects: firstly, it can attempt to shift the burden of proof away from the position of the questioner, and secondly, it can attempt to trick the responder into accepting unexamined claims by means of the complex question fallacy.

Dave

 

[ElMondoHummus]

That's exactly why an actual statement of a position is important. Starting a debate with nothing but questions has two potential pernicious effects: firstly, it can attempt to shift the burden of proof away from the position of the questioner, and secondly, it can attempt to trick the responder into accepting unexamined claims by means of the complex question fallacy.

Dave

You realize I was asking rhetorically, don't you?

------

That said, folks, Dave here is absolutely right: A position statement would be most helpful. It could be that the questioner has an honest query and is merely presenting it in a challenging way; there's something quite Socratic about such an approach, and we, too, have employed it quite often. However, context is key, and the neccessary context lies in several places, not the least of which is his very first post here, as well as the specific phrasing of the question.

Like many people, I accepted the US Government conspiracy theory regarding the events of 9/11 without question for about five years, at which time I was presented with a number of pieces of information that put the validity of the USG CT into question for myself.

Loaded language. It's perfectly possible to be neutral about conspiracy "theory" and still cast the "US Government" narrative as a "conspiracy theory", but the fact remains that I've seen zero - zero - nontruthers approach the topic in that manner in the 5 years I've been studying this topic. Other people in this forum have noted the same. So in the midst of 1. Language very strongly indicating truther beliefs, and 2. The desire to be accomodating in the hopes that this is indeed the one person who uses the language but does not yet subscribe to the beliefs of the 9/11 conspiracy narrative peddlers, we have to step back a bit and analyze the question: Why's it being asked that way?

What would the 'normal' (specifically, the non-suspicious, non-agenda driven, non conspiratorially inclined) way to approach the question of NIST's "integrity" regarding 9/11? Is it to fire out a question bringing into question our opinion of their honesty, and not broadly contextualize the question by seeing if the accusation has been made by engineering communities, such as ASCE? Or academic institutions? Most people look for the answer to the question of a governmental organization's "integrity" in the context of how other organizations view the question. But when asked what "you" think, does the goal often tend to be a discussion of the accuracy of such a charge? Or does it turn into an attempted imposition of what the questioner is trying to get at?

Yes, again, it's possible that there's no underlying agenda in the phrasing of such a question. At the same time, there's no need to wonder about this; as Dave said, an open statement clearly laying out the position of the questioner settles the issue.

Socratic approaches to topics of discussion are all well and good, but it cannot be forgotten that humans are ultimately contextual-thinking creatures. And it's not just the question itself that stimulates thinking and answer formation; it's the entire situation it's asked in.

So thus, a plea, couched as a reposting of Dave's question:

Apologies for joining the chorus here, but if you have a claim, please state it. If you won't even define your position, then there seems little point in any discussion of it.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

That's exactly why an actual statement of a position is important. Starting a debate with nothing but questions has two potential pernicious effects: firstly, it can attempt to shift the burden of proof away from the position of the questioner, and secondly, it can attempt to trick the responder into accepting unexamined claims by means of the complex question fallacy.

Dave

All his "questions" have been discussed ad nauseum in numerous threads already, all he has to do is use the search function if he really is interested in the answers.

 

[A W Smith]

Building roof altitude discrepancy between as built and the period of freefall.

@ AW SMith:

Thanks again for your thoughtful insights and perspectives.

Allow me to clarify---was there evidence of unsupported perimeter columns?

yes the 7 plus seconds previous to the claim of freefall. What do think was occuring for building 7 to lose altitude before the claim of freefall?

 

[Oystein]

Hi Oystein,

Thanks for the input on formulating my questions for you.

Are you making the implicit claim that the NIST investigation followed common standards of scientific integrity and investigation?

I look forward to our continued dialogue.

No.
I am not making any claims at this stage.
I am waiting for you to write down your claims honestly, and provide supporting evidence, such as correctly citing relevant studies.

Before that, there is nothing to talk about.
After that, we'll have a dialogue.

 

[femr2]

yes the 7 plus seconds previous to the claim of freefall. What do think was occuring for building 7 to lose altitude before the claim of freefall?

What 7 seconds ?

 

[Oystein]

What 7 seconds ?

[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/2/447669743.jpg[/qimg]

Collapse of core, as evidenced by the collapse of the mechanical penthouses before release of north wall roofline - 7 seconds, give or a take a bit.