Continuation: 'What about building 7?'

[Oystein]

Oystein, if you aren't a shill and honestly believe the nonsense you try to argue here then you are a deluded person desperately trying to hold on to a fantasy. You can't produce photos to back your claims. What a surprise.

Blah blah moving goalposts blah.
...

More like Poisoning the Well + Special Pleading + (a bit of) Moving Goalposts

 

[ozeco41]

I should do that reading first, and IF questions remain AND I find no one who [has read it already AND can give me an answer from the top of his head] THEN I might ask others to read and explain

Deal!

Economy of (overall) effort...which is in some country's principles of war

 

[Oystein]

Beat me to it. And did it better than I could.

You both missed the point of my third question (no doubt because I didn't make it explicit enough (which I no doubt failed to do because I wasn't sure what my point was; this is ongoing thinking)):


What can be learned^{[* ETA]} from the differences in the two simulation runs?
A) without debris damage
B) with conservatively estimated debris damage

The differences, in a nutshell, are the different starting conditions A and B, and the different end result (case A: exterior faces warp and deform much more like the real WTC7; case B: Much of the roofline stays relatively straight and level, giving a global appearance closer to the real WTC7).

I think it shows that
1. the global appearance is quite sensitive to the input of debris damage
2. ??
My hunch being that "more damage of the sort that was modelled in case B tends to keep the top of the north wall in a less distorted, more symmetrical shape during the early stages of perimeter descent".
Is that (one) reason why NIST shows both runs?

(No need for y'all to dig through the report if you don't know the answer already; I'll eventually do my own reading)



^{[* ETA]} ...and/or what did NIST intend to learn / intend its readers to learn...

 

[DGM]

What can be learned from the differences in the two simulation runs?
A) without debris damage
B) with conservatively estimated debris damage

Very little. The fact they (as I suspect) were trying to duplicate observed was futile at best. Too many variables. They should have not bit on the "truther" bone and gone after the slam dunk. "Free- fall" is meaningless as is exact replication in a simulation.

The differences, in a nutshell, are the different starting conditions A and B, and the different end result (case A: exterior faces warp and deform much more like the real WTC7; case B: Much of the roofline stays relatively straight and level, giving a global appearance closer to the real WTC7).

I think it shows that
1. the global appearance is quite sensitive to the input of debris damage
2. ??
My hunch being that "more damage of the sort that was modelled in case B tends to keep the top of the north wall in a less distorted, more symmetrical shape during the early stages of perimeter descent".
Is that (one) reason why NIST shows both runs?

(No need for y'all to dig through the report if you don't know the answer already; I'll eventually do my own reading)

The NIST never intended to show the exact global appearance. It would be far too complicated and require the modeling of the building as a whole (including the exterior).

Why do this? There really is no doubt the building failed.

 

[ozeco41]

You both missed the point of my third question (no doubt because I didn't make it explicit enough (which I no doubt failed to do because I wasn't sure what my point was; this is ongoing thinking)):

I failed "Mind Reading 302" - and as members can attest - never attempted "Modesty 101"

...They should have not bit on the "truther" bone and gone after the slam dunk. "Free- fall" is meaningless as is exact replication in a simulation.

Yes - err...."maybe". I can empathise with the NIST position - been there - done that - if in doubt play transparent. NOT responding can also bite your arse if you are a public organisation.

 

[ozeco41]

^{[* ETA]} ...and/or what did NIST intend to learn / intend its readers to learn...

Who were its intended readers?

 

[DGM]

NOT responding can also bite your arse if you are a public organisation.

Only if the asking organisation is actually a representative of the public at large. At the time the "truthers" played themselves as such. The NIST bought it.

Popular Mechanics decided to "debunk", "Loose Change" giving them un-deserved credibility. In my opinion, Popular Mechanics should be hailed by all "truthers" as giving them the recognition they needed.

Naturally they took it down hill from there.

 

[Norseman]

DGM, ozeco,

I didn't ask the question as part of a debate with Tony. This means I do not seek to disprobe a claim he makes or prove a claim I address towards him. Hence no issue of "his burden of proof or mine?"

I asked to further my own understanding: Did NIST model the exterior wall damage in Section consistent with the conservative damage estimate derived earlier?

I can now answer my own question: YES. The conservative damage estimate that we have been talking about here is derived in Section 5.5.3
The LS-DYNA model im Chapter 12 does use it: "After gravity initialization, debris impact damage due to the collapse of WTC 1 (Section 5.5.3) was
applied to the global model instantaneously." (Section 12.3.2, page 564)

My second question was whether that damage estimate was in fact conservative; in other words: I want to know whether it is probable the actual debris impact damage was more than what NIST modeled in Section 12.

My third question is then a matter of engineering judgement: Would more extensive damage of the same sort tend to change th outcome in the same direction that changing from "no damage" to "conservative damage" does, or is that too far out on a limb? (And: Does NIST discuss this?)

I wrote a post back in 2008 on the accuracy of the simulations that might help to deepen your understanding:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4116156#post4116156
(Se also my post #203 and #216 in that thread as backgrounders.)

The page numbers changed in the updated NIST report on WTC 7 that came out later, but the paragraphs are still correct. I also pointed out in the post, as DGM also just did, that the exterior curtain wall was not included in the simulation. And would have in my view likely have kept the exterior walls more rigid in the simulation, and thereby given an even closer correlation between simulation and reality. NIST also discussed the effect of the exterior curtain wall and interior partition walls in FAQ #29 WTC 7 from 2012.

Here is an even closer up photo of the exterior walls in the debris pile, than the ones i linked in my post:
https://archive.org/stream/nistreview-GeorgeMillerNYCTAfromCD#page/n204/mode/1up

Se also the photos above and below on the page. The description can be found on page 100 in NIST NCSTAR 1-9.

You may also want to have look at R.Mackey's take on the limits and the purpose of simulations here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7266399#post7266399

The NIST videos of the simulation with and without debris damage can be found here:
http://wtcdata.nist.gov/gallery2/v/NIST+Materials+and+Data/Computer+Simulations/WTC7_Structural+Response/

They can be compared to the real event in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrzeN-wvHD4

My view is that the simulations were good enough for their interned purpose. And that the truthers would have complained no matter how much fidelity NIST had put in to the simulations. That is if pencil x, on desk y on floor z; did no end up in the debris pile in the exact same spot as in the real world, then the simulation is not valid. And if the simulation looked to real, they would have complained that NIST had faked it, and that Hollywood was part of the conspiracy.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Seeing as you won't stop digging, show me the typo. Quote it.

Sorry Gerry can I made a mistake I attributed the 26" to you when I actually took the size of the lengths of the side plates from you and MHM. In the post where you quoted him.
I was laughing so hard at Tony S.
I got confused. The drawing you presented to me in the thread before this one,talking about the stiffener plates. If you like I can go though that thread and find it for you,but it will take some time.

 

[jaydeehess]

This is all true to a degree. The NIST did not consider the whole "gash" as they documented in their models because much of it was outside their scope of interest.

Tony is trying to say it never happened using the fact the NIST didn't use it in their model, although they did document it. His entire argument is based on a model being an exact replica of reality.

He knows no bounds of dishonesty and expects we wouldn't notice.

Been years since I read those sections myself. However one fact does tweak for me. Firefighters walking through the building found an elevator car that had been ejected from its shaft on iirc, the fifth floor. That could indicate core damage, could indicate roof damage to the elevator lift mechanism. However such possibilities were not used in any consideration for building collapse because NIST strictly restricted its damage scenario to that which could be backed by images.

ETA, I see the subject has been dealt with in detail by DGM and Norseman among others.

 

[kmortis]

Keep it civil; keep it on topic. The topic isn't the other posters.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

 

[chrismohr]

Yes Chris, and this goes straight to the heart of the matter. Everyone agreed that a natural collapse could not happen in freefall, even NIST, because as Sunder himself so clearly explained, that would imply the complete disappearance of the structure below/inside the falling top structure.

But this complete removal of structure is possible with incendiaries and explosives, which is why freefall is prima facie evidence for controlled demolition, and it remains so because NISTs computer model confirms that a natural collapse cannot result in freefall.

That NIST tries to ignore its own finding and imply that freefall is consistent with its work is not an example of NIST making a mistake, it is an example of a supposedly scientific institution playing politics, like Clinton saying "I did not have s## with that woman". It is sad that 9/11 did not receive the same level of scrutiny.



The corners cannot provide support to each other without a solid and stiff perimeter frame between them, and those perimeter frames depend on the support from the core. Without the core the 4 perimeter frames implode inwards. And here is the important bit Chris: As the core collapses down, it pulls on the floor structures which are outside it and in turn they pull on the exterior and drag it down with the core. You are trying to imagine an impossible scenario where interior collapses without pulling on the exterior.



The collapses of the penthouses were only the top one or two floors, but that is only 1 or two top floors of 47. To risk the implosion of the exterior you need two things: 1. loss of core support over several floors and 2. much lower in the building. The 2.25 secs of freefall covered about 100feet which translates into about 8 stories of disappeared structure. The building did not collapse until a substantial portion of the core was dropped in unison, pulling down the exterior as it fell.



Chris, NIST went over and debunked several alternative fire based explanations, including JSOs pet theory, before it arrived at the thermal expansion - girder walk off story. Some people will not listen to anyone and in the end no-one will listen to them either.



Chris, first off this is not at all about NIST "being perfect". The first two criteria when evaluating whether or not a new investigation is needed are:

- Did NISTs work disprove the primafacie evidence for CD such as freefall?
- Are there any indications for misconduct?

We have already seen that NISTs work does not refute freefall as evidence for controlled demolition and that alone tells us a new investigation is needed to find out what could have caused freefall. This does not have to be any more complicated than that. We have also mentioned some of the examples of misconduct by NIST, such as the handwaving of the freefall as discussed above. Other examples of this were discussed a while back when we were going over the thermal expansion story, such as fudged numbers and missing structural elements. I don´t think you realize how serious these kinds of offenses are. A fraudulent report could not only lead to a new investigation but also people losing their licences, people going to jail, and even a new agency to replace NIST.

You talk about the CTBUH not finding any major faults but I think you are mistaking the soft language in those kind of reports. The CTBUH found flaws so fatal to NISTs story that it says straight out it does not believe it at all, not the thermal expansion story, not the girder walk off story, and not the single column story. It tore apart NISTs report, and tt did that without noticing that NISTs model does not show freefall!

It made its comments a couple of months after NIST released its report so it did not have time to really dig into NISTs work, and in particular how NIST came to its conclusions with rather dishonest methods. The CBTUH published its comments long before the revelations were made about fudged numbers, missing structural members etc. And it did not know that NIST would refuse to release input data to prevent scrutiny of its work by independent scientists!

I will let you answer this before going into your bar for a new investigation, that is evidence for CD.

Wow, a few days and five pages more of comments! First, Tony, if anyone here is a shill, I haven't figured it out yet. I've talked privately with lots of people here. Some are liberal, even VERY liberal, others conservative politically. These "shills" you talk about live in Canada, the U.S., Australia, Germany, all over the place. They are all over the map, both politically and geographically. In the public realm people on the political spectrum from Rush Limbaugh to Noam Chomsky completely disagree with you. Even the people at NIST have never once come across to me as hiding The Big Lie. Never. Your accusation is, to be blunt, paranoid.
When I finally get my video out, it will be about the status of the 2009 Bentham paper put out by Harrit/Jones/Farrer/Ryan et al. I'm reporting on a large collection of very harsh critiques I have come across in both emails and blog posts, the majority of them by people who believe in 9/11 CD in one way or another. Large numbers of people in your own camp reject some or all of the 2009 thermite-in-the-dust paper. And at least one of them is very much a 9/11 Truth "insider" who wrote me things about the conduct of the experiments that shocked me. Will you declare all of them to be shills as well just because they have failed your loyalty test? Of course, there will also be Steven Jones's critiques of the Millette study and responses by Oystein, Sunstealer and others. But what really surprised me is how negative many of your own allies are about this paper.
The other thing that is amazing to me, Tony, is how completely differently you perceive the comments from those who disagree with you. You see contorted logic, resorts to ad hominem attacks, desperate attempts to prop up an untenable story. I see the ad hominem stuff all right, but I also see explanations that make a LOT of sense to me. And I marvel at your continued insistence that the collapse as shown in post 989 could not have triggered a fire of any kind for any reason in Building 7. That plus your "shills" comments both deeply undermine your credibility with me.
Anyway, Ziggi back to your more thoughtful post.
The freefall of Building 7 certainly caught my attention, and Sunder's comments before they revised their Report to include 2.25 seconds of ~freefall. As to WHY NIST did not explain freefall but simply revised the data and said it was consistent with their model, I can think of two explanations: 1) they are hiding something, rather blatantly out in the open. Specifically, you accuse them of hiding obvious evidence of CD with no effort to explain it away. If this were true, I would think some major institution like CTBUH or any university anywhere in the world would catch them on this and write a paper challenging NIST's veracity. Why has this not occurred? I would suggest that if this nefariousness is going on right under the noses of the scientific and engineering community, this should be something you and others at AE911 Truth should pursue vigorously. How long would it take to put together a brief email with a YouTube link to Sunder's claim of freefall meaning zero support, followed by proof of freefall? Send it to EVERYBODY. Don't limit yourself to American universities. Take this to Russian universities and tech schools as well, and other scientific institutions in countries not especially friendly to the U.S.
BTW, CTBUH has made it very clear that they "support the NIST Report." Their critiques were indeed relatively minor, and they came to NIST's defense when Chris Sarns called the NIST Report a "fairytale."
2) NIST's correction and acknowledgement of freefall may have been in fact a very minor point. This is what most of the people here claim. Free fall does not equal CD. That's the name of an active thread right here. I took the time to discover that other forces are indeed involved in collapse, as I have said many times. It's not just gravity vs resistance as Gage claims. You want me to entertain the possibility that NIST published the revised freefall data and they are laughing at the fact that they maliciously posted a blatantly false model and then ignored it. I just think that someone, somewhere in the traditional scientific community, would call them on this! I guess you would call this "argument from faith." But I do have faith in the process of scientific inquiry and the opportunities that exist in that community for corrections to be made and errors exposed.

As for your claim, "You are trying to imagine an impossible scenario where interior collapses without pulling on the exterior", the kink shows me that the exterior was strained by the interior collapses. Of COURSE the exterior was pulled on. That's why it collapsed! From a non-expert's view, it's obvious to me that the perimeter walls offered some structural support for one another, and the two stories of extra framing on the lower part of the building provided more support. You claimed that "The corners cannot provide support to each other without a solid and stiff perimeter frame between them, and those perimeter frames depend on the support from the core. Without the core the 4 perimeter frames implode inwards." In my Lincoln Log days as a kid, I built all kinds of things with perimeter walls only. It may be a horrible comparison, but in my toy buildings the four perimeter walls definitely supported one another and didn't need anything in the middle. Obviously, the perimeter walls of Building 7 needed core support to be structurally sound. But we are looking at only a very short time where support was provided by four exterior walls and the extra perimeter support lower down. Chainsaw's explanation of how a very fast succession of column failures can occur fits well with what Ryan Mackey explained to me years ago, then ozeco41, and in phone conversations with NIST. The flexibility of the steel in the columns just means that the failure happened at the least flexible (and weakest) part, which is around the welded connections, which is what NIST, Chainsaw, Ryan Mackey, Ozeco41 and others have all said. And the global failure of the perimeter happened only around six seconds after the interior collapse, after several feet of kinking and leaning revealed catastrophic structural distress. I can't say exactly what happened in those six seconds or so when the perimeter wall held up on its own. But it sure seems to me that very fast progressive column failures until there just wasn't any support left would explain it.
You seem to be claiming that the interior collapses of the penthouses went down only a couple floors in a mini-CD, then all 24 columns of the core were destroyed lower down. An odd CD sequence I would say, and not supported by the several stories of windows blown out and light from the sky shining through them. It's even odder when, if you also believe freefall = CD, the evildoers would set up a freefall collapse at all, since most real CDs don't go into freefall. Why provide you with such "evidence" when a somewhat slower CD could have been set up? Why was their dust coming out of every floot in the Towers and then a clean collapse of the perimeter wall in Building 7? Why was one "designed" to be implosive and the other two explosive? Or do you suppose that the different structures and different kinds of unfought fire damage and the absence of planes hitting Building 7 could have created different kinds of collapses? I know, these are nontechnical objections, but that is the level of competence I have.

You also wrote, "To risk the implosion of the exterior you need two things: 1. loss of core support over several floors and 2. much lower in the building." That's assuming CD, but aren't NIST and many others here (like JSanderO) agreeing that the catastrophic loss of core column support happened very quickly and lower down in the building? In other words, both you and NIST (and their "shills") are agreeing in some very general way.

You said about NIST, "I don´t think you realize how serious these kinds of offenses are." I am unqualified to judge how serious the charges you level against NIST actually are. I do realize that your charges are very serious, I just don't know if they can hold up to objective scientific scrutiny. Are they simply creating a model simple enough for their computers to churn out collapse scenarios that explain the basic collapse sequence, or are they fudging numbers and ignoring the freefall data because they are outrageously brazen and sociopathic (so much so that an entire group of NIST workers from the top down are all willing to risk jail)? I can only argue from incredulity here. But, I will say again what I have said to Richard Gage privately and in many public forums. Take your accusations of NIST fraud to independent investigators who are technically qualified to judge the merits of your claims. That's what I did with Jim Millette, and he gave me the report I paid him for. You can take your claims to a major structural engineering firm or university. Hire them to write up a report on the validity of your claims. You have NO traction yet, and can get traction ONLY when the traditional scientific community backs up your claims. What I say and think carries no weight in the real scientific debate.
Why don't you go back to CTBUH and ask them if they would consider revisiting their study of NIST? Yes, their report came out shortly after the NIST Report, but then it was several more months of getting critiques from Chris Sarns before they made their statement of support for thge NIST Report and called your movement a distraction. Still, maybe they can recommend a good engineering firm or other scientific institution that could use the money and would be willing to do an analysis of your claims.

 

[beachnut]

Only you know for sure if you are a shill, but I certainly think it.

The persistent denial by regulars here of the clear evidence presented by Mirage memories, gerrycan, Ziggi, and myself is evidence of shills.

For 911 truth.

You have presented no evidence, only talk and opinions. You, MM, gerrycan, ziggi have failed to present anything of value. Zero evidence for your silent explosives, less than zero for thermite.

Who did your CD, oops, now it is arson. Was it Enron?

Are we paid shills, or babysitting grandkids...

BTW, if WTC 7 was CD, did you call the FBI. Bashing NIST BS is a waste of time. 911 truth can't come up with valid claims about WTC 7; what is left, bashing NIST. Who needs NIST?

Who needs NIST?
911 truth needs NIST because 911 truth has no valid evidence for CD. We suffer the BS from a few who can't figure out 911, and think some bad guys did 911, other than 19 in four planes.

After mangling the WTC 7 NIST junk, I can't wait for what Flight 93 and Flight 77 had to do with 911 based fantasy plot. A plot which includes WTC 7 CD, and arson.

Are we paid shills?

Anyway, CD would be an FBI matter, what did the FBI say when you gave them all your evidence. You did give the FBI evidence right? If not are you part of the coverup?

What did the FBI say? yip.... yip.l.. wowee...

Mirage memories, gerrycan, Ziggi, and myself is evidence of shills

For 911 truth. What does Gage pay?

Where is the engineering stuff to prove CD?

 

[JSanderO]

Chris you made a brilliant suggestion and one I for the life of me don't understand why AE and CD guys haven't pursued... go find an industry or scientific community recognized and qualified technical team of experts to analyze and review your claims. Take it to a university or two... maybe several grad students can do it as a thesis....

Ozeco and I and others don't defend NIST on all points. I think they may have made mistakes. I think Bazant did not describe the wtc collapses and so it's not much use. I don't see "fraud" hinging on the movement of one beam seat.

Further as has been pointed out... the perimeter of 87wtc was a pretty rigid moment frame with the curtain wall clipped to it. It was supported at the 8th floor with very few columns directly coupled to the foundation... those structure below flr 8 could have "folded" inward (pulled in by a core collapse/failure) leaving the 4 perimeter curtain walls attached to the rigid moment frame...with nothing to support them and basically plunged 8 stories and would do so at or close to FF... why would they drop slower? As they were probably still connect to some floors there exists the possibility for addition force vectors to added to the motion.

Take you claims to an independent group and report back.

 

[ProBonoShill]

Chris you made a brilliant suggestion and one I for the life of me don't understand why AE and CD guys haven't pursued... go find an industry or scientific community recognized and qualified technical team of experts to analyze and review your claims. Take it to a university or two... maybe several grad students can do it as a thesis....

Ozeco and I and others don't defend NIST on all points. I think they may have made mistakes. I think Bazant did not describe the wtc collapses and so it's not much use. I don't see "fraud" hinging on the movement of one beam seat.

Further as has been pointed out... the perimeter of 87wtc was a pretty rigid moment frame with the curtain wall clipped to it. It was supported at the 8th floor with very few columns directly coupled to the foundation... those structure below flr 8 could have "folded" inward (pulled in by a core collapse/failure) leaving the 4 perimeter curtain walls attached to the rigid moment frame...with nothing to support them and basically plunged 8 stories and would do so at or close to FF... why would they drop slower? As they were probably still connect to some floors there exists the possibility for addition force vectors to added to the motion.

Take you claims to an independent group and report back.

Well I think we all know why Dicky Gage hasn't pursued this option, it would bring his gravy train to a screeching halt.

 

[NoahFence]

Well I think we all know why Dicky Gage hasn't pursued this option, it would bring his gravy train to a screeching halt.

That's it exactly. They know full well they're full of BS.

 

[Ziggi]

...The freefall of Building 7 certainly caught my attention, and Sunder's comments before they revised their Report to include 2.25 seconds of ~freefall. As to WHY NIST did not explain freefall but simply revised the data and said it was consistent with their model, I can think of two explanations: 1) they are hiding something, rather blatantly out in the open. Specifically, you accuse them of hiding obvious evidence of CD with no effort to explain it away.

That NIST has not explained the freefall is not an accusation Chris, it is a statement of documented fact. NIST does not try to explain the freefall even though it had declared it impossible.

...If this were true, I would think some major institution like CTBUH or any university anywhere in the world would catch them on this and write a paper challenging NIST's veracity. Why has this not occurred?. ..

The challenge has occurred in multiple ways and forms, from letters to NIST to published essays and formal reports by various scientists and professionals and people that have designed steel framed skysrapers for a living. As you know AE911Truth hired a lawyer to try to get NIST to respond but NIST refuses to do anything and it has been able to get away with this because it is owned and operated by the government. It does not matter which experts or institutions debunk its reports, because NIST has decided it does not need to respond, and so far it has gotten away with it. But the outrage has not spread fast enough because the media has not done its job, and the subject is still taboo.

This is the problem Chris. The question you end up with is what can be done? And you already know the answer. We spread the word and gather support, like AE911Truth is doing.

...this should be something you and others at AE911 Truth should pursue vigorously. How long would it take to put together a brief email with a YouTube link to Sunder's claim of freefall meaning zero support, followed by proof of freefall? Send it to EVERYBODY...

Same answer as above, the message being spread by all methods including emails, videos, essays, articles, formal papers, peer reviewed papers and various other activism. Prof. Jones toured the world for a while giving lectures at universities, and Harrit has done that and is still doing so. Richard is about to go on a tour to Europe. And AE911 goes to AIA conventions each year to gather new signatories to the petition. The problem has not been lack of effort, the problem has been that questioning 9/11 has been a taboo subject which meant getting people to pay attention was difficult. But this is finally changing.

...BTW, CTBUH has made it very clear that they "support the NIST Report." Their critiques were indeed relatively minor, and they came to NIST's defense when Chris Sarns called the NIST Report a "fairytale."...

You refer to the critique as "relatively minor" without explaining how you came to that conclusion. I already explained how it tore apart the report to the point that it debunked NISTs story.

...NIST's correction and acknowledgement of freefall may have been in fact a very minor point. This is what most of the people here claim. Free fall does not equal CD. That's the name of an active thread right here....I took the time to discover that other forces are indeed involved in collapse, as I have said many times. It's not just gravity vs resistance as Gage claims....

That NIST could not explain a phenomenon it had declared impossible is not a minor point in any shape or form Chris. We have already gone over your previous "other forces" explanation and you have already ackncowledged it does not work out when scrutinized. Let´s not raise the dead. You had believed that storyline because you trusted very authoritative claims by your buddies on this forum, and it is time you reconsider that trust. I have pointed out to you several times here examples of them making up stuff or taking quotes out of context to support their faith, but you have still not commented on that, and this remains a BIG elephant in your room Chris.

...As for your claim, "You are trying to imagine an impossible scenario where interior collapses without pulling on the exterior", the kink shows me that the exterior was strained by the interior collapses. Of COURSE the exterior was pulled on. That's why it collapsed!.

Of course, in reality the core pulled the exterior down Chris, this is what truthers are saying. NIST has a different story.

...From a non-expert's view, it's obvious to me that the perimeter walls offered some structural support for one another, and the two stories of extra framing on the lower part of the building provided more support. You claimed that "The corners cannot provide support to each other without a solid and stiff perimeter frame between them, and those perimeter frames depend on the support from the core. Without the core the 4 perimeter frames implode inwards." In my Lincoln Log days as a kid, I built all kinds of things with perimeter walls only. It may be a horrible comparison.

This is not a problem for small structures low in height, but a big thing for structures several hundred feet high. This is why a steel column will collapse under its own weight if it is made tall enough. This is not a matter of debate. Watch NISTs model to see how the perimeter frame starts to buckle as soon as the interior support is lost.

...It's even odder when, if you also believe freefall = CD, the evildoers would set up a freefall collapse at all, since most real CDs don't go into freefall. Why provide you with such "evidence" when a somewhat slower CD could have been set up? Why was their dust coming out of every floot in the Towers and then a clean collapse of the perimeter wall in Building 7? ..

Setting up a CD with 8 stories of freefall was simply overkill. The Twin Towers could not be imploded in the traditional bottom up way for two main reasons. It is probably pretty much impossible to do on such extremely tall structures without toppling them sideways, and besides that the top down failure mode was needed to match the jet impacts did it story. The squibs from the Towers resulted from the explosives needed the keep the top down collapse going. Traditional demolitions rely on the top 2/3 of the building being dropped down on the bottom 1/3. In the Towers you had something like the top 15 floors dropping down on the bottom 90, and a verifiable ******** of "exotic accelerants" was needed to keep that collapse going.

...You also wrote, "To risk the implosion of the exterior you need two things: 1. loss of core support over several floors and 2. much lower in the building." That's assuming CD, but aren't NIST and many others here (like JSanderO) agreeing that the catastrophic loss of core column support happened very quickly and lower down in the building? In other words, both you and NIST (and their "shills") are agreeing in some very general way..

There is no agreement. In reality 8 floors of the core were removed symmetrically to allow the whole core to drop down in unison and pull down (implode) the exterior. NISTs story has the interior collapsing asymmetrically from east to west before the exterior implodes. That is not possible in reality and NISTs model proves it nicely, no matter how many stories are imagined about things happening "very quickly"..again take a close look at the model and see how the exterior starts to deform as soon as the interior starts collapsing.

...You said about NIST, "I don´t think you realize how serious these kinds of offenses are." I am unqualified to judge how serious the charges you level against NIST actually are. I do realize that your charges are very serious, I just don't know if they can hold up to objective scientific scrutiny. Are they simply creating a model simple enough for their computers to churn out collapse scenarios that explain the basic collapse sequence, or are they fudging numbers and ignoring the freefall data because they are outrageously brazen and sociopathic (so much so that an entire group of NIST workers from the top down are all willing to risk jail)? I can only argue from incredulity here..

The fudged numbers and omisions and distortions are all examples of scientific misconduct. Whether it is accidental or intentional is not really the issue because the report remains invalid both ways. I don´t think lower level "worker bees" at NIST should be blamed for this because they have no control of who arranges and puts together all the little bits of data from all the different compartments and workstations. The ones facing the music would be the top level brass in the governmental institution that is NIST, and brazen sociopaths regularly occupy such top level positions, as I am sure you know.

Do you agree that if my accusation of fudgery were proven, it would mean the NIST report would be discredited and the call for a new report justified?

...Why don't you go back to CTBUH and ask them if they would consider revisiting their study of NIST? Yes, their report came out shortly after the NIST Report, but then it was several more months of getting critiques from Chris Sarns before they made their statement of support for thge NIST Report and called your movement a distraction. Still, maybe they can recommend a good engineering firm or other scientific institution that could use the money and would be willing to do an analysis of your claims.

These sort of requests are not likely to be successful unless there is a change in the political climate, especially if there is to be any hope for the release of conclusions in disagreement with the official truth, and again for that to happen a lot of action is needed to break the taboo. And as I said before the problem is not lack of proof against NIST, but the ability of NIST to give everyone the finger. Until this changes there is not much point putting out a lot time and money into more reports. The case against NIST should be the matter of public discussion in the mainstream media and then it should be settled with an independent investigation.

Chris, take you time going over this. I will be extremely busy for the next two weeks and it is unlikely that I will have time to respond at all for about a week, and then maybe in little bits the week after that.

 

[beachnut]

That NIST has not explained the freefall is not an accusation Chris, it is a statement of documented fact. NIST does not try to explain the freefall even though it had declared it impossible. ... like AE911Truth is doing. ....

AE911T only product, lies. The CD, thermite and explosives, dumbed down lies.

Free fall is not impossible. And free-fall does not imply CD. And there will be no engineering to show otherwise from 911 truth - only lies and opinions, failed talk.

What is your claim on WTC 7? Right, all you have is BS. You can't support your theory with evidence, so there is the constant failed attack on NIST. Lucky for me I know fire caused the collapse, and I don't need NIST. 911 truth needs NIST to bash, and fail. Bash and fail, the old fail 911 truth tactic to avoid engineering.

Is your fantasy CD done with thermite or silent explosives? Got any evidence yet? Are you going to start a thread about your theory on Flight 93 and Flight 77?

13 years, when you expose the big inside job. How many years with the overwhelming evidence remain hidden in the fantasy world of 911 truth.

With the dumbed down web sites misleading gullible people, cites like this...
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2008/08/top-40-reasons-official-911-story-is.html (wow, 40 claims of nonsense, 40 points of failure, including WTC 7)
Guess it is easy for gullible people to fall for dumbed down tripe from web sites like Debunking the Debunkers. No real logic, no facts, just BS dumbed down to fool paranoid conspiracy theorists.

Where do you guys hide the overwhelming evidence?

They cite overwhelming evidence for explosive controlled demolition. http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/about-us.html

Since 9/11, however, independent researchers around the world have assembled a large body of evidence that overwhelmingly refutes the notion that airplane impacts and fires caused the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC 7. http://www.ae911truth.org/gallery/evidence.html

40 technical experts in fields ranging from structural engineering to chemistry to building demolition who explain why the evidence overwhelmingly points to the controlled demolition of World Trade Center Building 7 and the Twin Towers. http://rethink911.org/

All you have; Lies, made up by failed humans who mock the murder of thousands. Next time try engineering, math and physics. Failed opinions from fake "experts", is not evidence.

Present some engineering to prove your points. You have nothing but failed talking points, nothing to back it up.

 

[GlennB]

There is no agreement. In reality 8 floors of the core were removed symmetrically to allow the whole core to drop down in unison and pull down (implode) the exterior.

Then you need to explain the early failure of the EMP.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Everyone knows your aims and motives Ziggi so no one takes you seriously over a decade of constantly failing and false claims, the problem is the truth movement has no credibility.
No one believes the boy who cried wolf, and once a university puts Nist to the test,
And Nist passes as they will, your finished.
How does it feel Ziggi to be on the wrong side of history?

Ziggi is not on the wrong side of history. The only thing stopping a new investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 is politics as the NIST WTC 7 report's explanation is simply non-explanatory as he and many of us have shown in a detailed way here and elsewhere.