Gage's next debate

[Christopher7]

I've studied the floor plans, I have done my own fuel load calculations, I have done my own simulations.

Well, pin a rose on your nose.

There is only one calculation that needs to be done:

A fire that has burned out [leaving perhaps a few smoldering items]
Heat produced - Negligible

You based your analysis on a few photos, and (I am assuming) a couple of grainy YouTube videos.

My analysis is based on the photos and narrative in the final report. They clearly establish that the fire had burned out in the area of the collapse over an hour before the collapse.

Your analysis of fires that had burned out is meaningless.


Basque Arch,
You are thinking of the NIST computer simulations which do NOT match the photographic record or the narrative of the progression of the fire on floor 12.

 

[Christopher7]

Chris, will you man up and acknowledge that NIST did not explain the collapse and indeed committed fraud when they said that a fire that had burned out caused thermal expansion?

Chris7 I'm not biting any more. The only thing any of us owe one another on this thread is not to be dishonest, not to swear, not to do stuff that gets us all shut down. I'm done talking about floor 12. You have my answers, they weren't good enough. Whose problem is that? The manly thing to do is say finis. People don't always answer my questions here either. Nobody owes me nuthin either. They answer because they want to, when they want to. Finis.

Your answer was:
"some people think that NIST may have missed the role thermal shrinking played in the collapse"

That is an assertion that NIST was either wrong/incompetent - they "missed" the thermal contraction, or willfully wrong/fraud - they knew their hypothesis did not work but put it out anyway.

In either case you have acknowledged that NIST was wrong and they did not explain the collapse, even if you can't bring yourself to say actually it.

 

[Jono]

No. NIST had only one conclusion and that is the one we have been discussing.

Here are the findings based on the four different models NIST did (NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (vol.2) page 604):

• The best estimate simulation led to collapse of WTC 7 and provided a reasonable sequence and timing of the events leading to the initiation of global collapse. As expected, there were some deviations from the observable evidence at computation times after global collapse was underway.
• The simulation with identical debris damage, but reduced fire damage, did not lead to a collapse-initating event or to collapse itself. This result indicated that the debris impact damage, by itself, was not sufficient to initiate global collapse. It also indicated that the long duration of the multiple floor fires was the primary cause of the collapse.
• The simulation with the same fire-induced damage as the best estimate simulation, but with no debris damage, identified the same initiating event and timing of that event as did the best estimate simulation. This simulation also led to global collapse of the building, further indicating that the debris impact damage was not a principal contributor to the occurence of collapse. However, the mechanics of the collapse differed from the best estimate simulation in the later stages of the horizontal progression of failure.
• WTC7 was prone to classic progressive collapse in the absence of debris impact and fire-induced damage when a section of Column 79 between Floors 11 and 13 was removed. The collapse sequence demonstrated a vertical and horizontal progression of failure upon the removal of the Column 79 section, followed by buckling of exterior columns, which led to the collapse of the entire building.

The building did fall in several different scenarios, with trial and error they discovered a critical flaw bearing in the approximated columns. It's not implausible there would've been other columns equally prone to cause destruction had they been removed as well.

According the the NIST hypothesis, it all happened in a continuous collapse. See my post above.

I do not see what this has got to do with the fires not continuing at that section up until collapse. Nor do I understand what this would have to do with the sequence of collapse. The damage was done and the building was deteriorating, where portions continued to give away which in turn produced an onset of collapse, which in turn caused an onset of global collapse.... as it did in different models with different kinds of trauma, all showing the weakness of the building to be a victim of progressive collapse.

 

[Christopher7]

Here are the findings based on the four different models NIST did (NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (vol.2) page 604):

So what? You can get the building to do anything you want depending on what you input. GIGO

Until they release the input data, which they won't, the simulations amount to "You'll just have to take our word for it"
Forgive me if I don't accept that on blind faith.

I do not see what this has got to do with the fires not continuing at that section up until collapse. Nor do I understand what this would have to do with the sequence of collapse. The damage was done and the building was deteriorating, where portions continued to give away which in turn produced an onset of collapse

Nada. No matter how you slice and dice it, the fire that supposedly triggered the collapse had gone out in that area over an hour earlier. It could not and did not start the collapse.

 

[NoahFence]

The point here is that the NIST hypothesis is incorrect as you admitted. Yet you still believe their conclusion despite the fact that they did not prove their hypothesis.

Whatever blows your skirt up.

People here deny any evidence of CD and then claim that there is none so there is no need for me to present it again.


There is no proof that fires brought down WTC 7, just a fraudulent report trying to prove a pre determined conclusion and failing to do so.


And still no word from Chris Mohr.

It's not their hypothesis that's suspect. It's their math. The end result is the same. If, in your estimation, there's no proof fires did the deed, then what, in your opinion, did?

Part B - do you have any solid evidence to support your opinion?

 

[tsig]

Well, pin a rose on your nose.

There is only one calculation that needs to be done:

A fire that has burned out [leaving perhaps a few smoldering items]
Heat produced - Negligible

My analysis is based on the photos and narrative in the final report. They clearly establish that the fire had burned out in the area of the collapse over an hour before the collapse.

Your analysis of fires that had burned out is meaningless.


Basque Arch,
You are thinking of the NIST computer simulations which do NOT match the photographic record or the narrative of the progression of the fire on floor 12.

So you watched some videos and listened to the narrative?

 

[triforcharity]

Well, pin a rose on your nose.

There is only one calculation that needs to be done:

A fire that has burned out [leaving perhaps a few smoldering items]
Heat produced - Negligible

And you can prove that your analysis is correct how?

My analysis is based on the photos and narrative in the final report. They clearly establish that the fire had burned out in the area of the collapse over an hour before the collapse.

And you can prove that your analysis is correct how?

Where's your calculations? Scribbles on a photo does not equal an analysis.

Your analysis of fires that had burned out is meaningless.

Yep. I guess it is. Because a CARPENTER told me so.......

 

[riptowtan]

@ Chris 7
I'm pretty sure I already know the answer to this but I'll ask it anyway. Do you think the "error(s)" you claim to have found in the NIST report are honest mistakes or were the researchers in on it in some way?
If honest mistakes, how is it that no other engineers, including the hundreds that attended their press conference noticed these, when a layperson such as yourself can?

And if they were all swayed in some way to cover it up, why wouldn't they just fabricate evidence, let's say show a picture of Column 79 buckled, or whatever else you think would prove it. And I'm confused by your posts, as you constantly quote a report you believe has an invalid conclusion, but accept everything else in the report as fact. I myself suspend judgement on any technical engineering reports as I am a layperson, not a structural engineer. That is the rational thing to do when you come across some technical report outside your expertise. Listen to the vast majority of experts, not some fringe group. I understand you think the problems are obvious for even the layperson, but couldn't that just be some confusion on your part? Most engineers, including those on this forum seem to accept the conclusions as reasonable. If there really are big problems with the report, it would be easy for members of the AE911 truth group to write a paper and publish it in peer reviewed engineering journal. The fact that this hasn't been done yet, along with the lack of evidence for thermite/bombs makes your case very unconvincing.

 

[BasqueArch]

..... One steel sample contained a pore with pure sulfur embedded in it. ..... “How do you get sulfur in these pieces of steel or in the debris?” he wanted to know.

Sulfur? I believe it was a natural process.

That reminds me.
Did you know that your signature is a lie?
I even started a thread about it.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7135545#post7135545
Take a look.

 

[000063]

Yes. It's just an attempt to change the subject without acknowledging the point. Until you accept that NIST has not explained the collapse you will not entertain any other explanation so the question is just a diversion.

Unless we accept your premise, we won't accept your conclusion?

Seems about right.

 

[aggle-rithm]

So what? You can get the building to do anything you want depending on what you input. GIGO

Then input your own data and tell us what really happened.

 

[dafydd]

My analysis is based on the photos and narrative in the final report. They clearly establish that the fire had burned out in the area of the collapse over an hour before the collapse.

12.

What training have you had that enables you to make such an analysis? Show us your math.

 

[funk de fino]

Which proves that their input data is skewed to make the building collapse. The failure of a single column cannot make a modern skyscraper collapse at all, much less in the manner that WTC 7 came down. If you believe that the failure of a single column can cause the total collapse of a modern skyscraper then you will believe anything the government says on blind faith.

You have to prove they are wrong and not just make crap up. They are not my government and I couldn't give two hoots about governments. You are the one who is politically blinded.

NIST refuses to release the input data to be verified because they know it's skewed. The Bush administration was notorious for falsifying scientific reports to fit their political agenda and the NIST reports are no exception

More made up CT stuff.

The NIST report is clearly fraudulent in that they said a fire that had burned out caused thermal expansion so you should not accept their assertion that the failure of a single column could cause a total collapse.

Prove them wrong. I will listen.

Keep your opinion of me to yourself and deal with the reality that NIST has not explained the collapse of WTC 7.

I cannot post my opinion of you. I would get a warning. However it is proven you are a liar and dishonest with your claims. You are someone who will not contact people of relevance for further clarification on anything you claim.

You can prove me wrong of course.

 

[funk de fino]

No, NIST says they have a photo showing that the fire on floor 12 had burned out by about 4:45. Your reading comprehension is zilch.[/URL]

What does the other photograph say C7. The one in the final report? Does it say 5.00pm?

 

[Christopher7]

What training have you had that enables you to make such an analysis? Show us your math.

All that is required is the ability to read and understand the following:
NIST L pg 26 [pdf pg 30]
Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time.

to realize that
It did not cause the thermal expansion that supposedly initiated the collapse at 5:20 p.m.

But the denier choir throws up a barrage of BS in a vain attempt to deny the obvious and will continue doing so.

Funk, We have already discussed the 5 p.m. "plus or minus AT LEAST 10 minutes based on shadows" photo. It could be off by as much as 30 minutes so it does not conflict with the photo showing that the fire on floor 12 had burned out by about 4:45.

The refusal to accept the clear statement by NIST that they have a photo showing the fire on floor 12 had burned out by about 4:45, and photographic evidence in the final report that confirms that statement, can only be described as denial.

 

[aggle-rithm]

All that is required is the ability to read and understand the following:
NIST L pg 26 [pdf pg 30]
Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time.

This is different from the claim that you made, that the photographic evidence showed that there was no fire on floor 12.

How do you suppose the structure on floor 12 was insulated from the heat produced by four floors burning below it?

 

[dafydd]

All that is required is the ability to read and understand the following:
NIST L pg 26 [pdf pg 30]
Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time.

to realize that
It did not cause the thermal expansion that supposedly initiated the collapse at 5:20 p.m.

But the denier choir throws up a barrage of BS in a vain attempt to deny the obvious and will continue doing so.

Funk, We have already discussed the 5 p.m. "plus or minus AT LEAST 10 minutes based on shadows" photo. It could be off by as much as 30 minutes so it does not conflict with the photo showing that the fire on floor 12 had burned out by about 4:45.

The refusal to accept the clear statement by NIST that they have a photo showing the fire on floor 12 had burned out by about 4:45, and photographic evidence in the final report that confirms that statement, can only be described as denial.

No training,understood. I will believe the people who actually know what they are talking about on this one.

 

[Christopher7]

This is different from the claim that you made, that the photographic evidence showed that there was no fire on floor 12.

It's not a claim. It's conformation of what NIST clearly stated in the appendix L report. In my analysis at http://truthphalanx.com/chris_sarns/ I give the quote from the final report that confirms the fire on floor 12 burned the area around column 79 and under the beams is question between 2:30 and 3:00 p.m.

“By 3:00 p.m., the fire had spread internally past the northeast corner and onto the north face.”
http://a.imageshack.us/img22/5810/fireoverlay4.jpg

and the quote establishing how long these fires burned.

"Fires on Floors 11 to 13 persisted in any given location for approximately 20 min to 30 min."

You can do the math yourself.

How do you suppose the structure on floor 12 was insulated from the heat produced by four floors burning below it?

The structure on floor 12 is not the issue, it's the floor beams on floor 13 that supposedly expanded enough to push a girder off it's seat at 5:20 p.m.

After the fire on floor 12 had burned out in the east end, the breeze from the NW pushed cool air thru all the open windows and carried away any heat coming thru the floor slab from below. It is not necessary to do the math on that but you can if you want to.

 

[triforcharity]

There you go again with your blatent dishonesty. Why don't you use the actual final report? Oh, right, because it explains why you're wrong.

 

[BasqueArch]

It's not a claim. It's conformation of what NIST clearly stated in the appendix L report. In my analysis at http://truthphalanx.com/chris_sarns/ I give the quote from the final report that confirms the fire on floor 12 burned the area around column 79 and under the beams is question between 2:30 and 3:00 p.m.

“By 3:00 p.m., the fire had spread internally past the northeast corner and onto the north face.”
http://a.imageshack.us/img22/5810/fireoverlay4.jpg

and the quote establishing how long these fires burned.

"Fires on Floors 11 to 13 persisted in any given location for approximately 20 min to 30 min."

You can do the math yourself.


The structure on floor 12 is not the issue, it's the floor beams on floor 13 that supposedly expanded enough to push a girder off it's seat at 5:20 p.m.

After the fire on floor 12 had burned out in the east end, the breeze from the NW pushed cool air thru all the open windows and carried away any heat coming thru the floor slab from below. It is not necessary to do the math on that but you can if you want to.

I saw your web site and your picture claims are wrong. The final report says the fires were heavy at 12 th floor and have pictures of 12th floor fires after 4pm, so you're wrong there also. Your quote is from the preliminary 4 years before the final report , they said was an incomplete investigation, is misleading without also saying NIST's final report shows fires on the 12th floor upt ot collapse which they report but you don't quote. They have more pictures up to after 5pm showing fires on the 12th floor that you don't mention since they contradict what you wish to believe.

Your web site is wrong, actually the NIST pictures match pretty closely with their graphics, your graphics are way off to the pictures, like the last one where you show no fires at 5pm but the photo you provide shows fires on the 12th floor.

It's not even worth the while to better compose this reply. Your persistent distortions can fool some of the people some of the time, as per above, but in the real world where engineering meets the road and professionals know what counts and things get done, you're a nobody, sorry.