If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Part II

MicahJava said:
The "structural damage" was superficial. Source: NIST. If WTC 7 collapsed from structural failure, than the engineer would have to have a 100% perfect understanding of the current situation, which means disagreeing with the firefighters there who though the damage from North Tower rubble was pretty bad. The firefighters went through the trauma of the Twin Towers collapsing, and the loss of their brothers. An engineer "from the office of emergency management", however, would have a fresher and more professional perspective. This engineer predicting the hour of the collapse when the big fires had only been burning for about 30 minutes to an hour is very suspicious.



Yeah right, we all know that tall steel buildings on fire just end up as charred skeletons except for 9/11. What does not happen is a collapse just like a controlled demolition like something out of Loony tunes.
Click to expand...

Wow...two big lies back to back.

The structural damage was major and extensive. Seven of the exterior load bearing columns were completely severed by the collapse of the North Tower.

Charred Skeletons? Architects and Structural Engineers who design steel buildings for a living, know steel structures are subject to collapse due to fire. That is why they install sprinkler systems and wrap the steel members in fireproofing.
 
tfk said:
MicahJava




I've asked you before to tell us your educational & professional background.

With this comment, you appear to be making a claim to having a structural engineering background, with a specialization in “fire damage assessment” & “progressive collapse”.



Sometime sarcasm doesn’t transmit well in this medium, so let me be clear.
I have complete confidence that you’ve never set foot in a mechanical/structural engineering classroom.

Care to share your real background?
We’ve all found out that truthers rarely share their backgrounds. The main reason: they have none that is pertinent to any of these issues. They are amateurs.
And they get their information from other amateurs.
Which is exactly what you have done.

We’ve all found out that debunkers almost always share their backgrounds. The main reason: debunkers are smart enough to listen to, & depend upon, the opinions & conclusions of experts.
__

One of your real problems is that you accept entirely implausible reports in the media as “facts”.

Here’s an interesting exercise, and it will be enlightening, if you play along.

Walk thru ALL the steps that you believe culminated in the decision for Hayden to order the clearing of the perimeter around WTC7, because it might be in danger of collapse.

Ignore the numbers. Put in whatever you want, but start with …

1. WTC 1 collapses, breaking water mains, causing some amount of damage to WTC7 & starting some fires inside.
2. …
3. …
4. ….
5. Someone called for somebody with a transit.
6. A guy with a transit arrives & does (something)
7. …
8. …
9. …
10. And Deputy Chief Hayden gets the message that (… something).
11. …
12. …
13. Deputy Chef Hayden records his oral history, asserting that “someone told him that the building was going to collapse around 5 to 6 pm.”

I am really curious what you are going to say.

I am pretty damn sure that both of the following are false:

1. the engineer / fireman taking those measurements said “the building was going to collapse around 5 to 6 pm.”.
2. the engineer based his measurements on measurements of “the bulge”.

My confidence is due to the fact that I’ve been the engineer taking measurements like that, in some perilous situations. Dangerous to fewer other people, so less of a disaster. But potentially fatal to me, so more of a catastrophe.

After you present your sequence, I’ll present mine & we’ll compare notes.
Click to expand...

I have no professional expertise. I am waiting on NIST's answer to one of my FOIA requests for transcripts of interviews with some fire chiefs in order for me to gain a better understanding of the situation leading up to WTC 7 becoming a pile of rubble. NIST would have asked many specific questions about WTC 7, so that would be a better source of information rather than a few quotes from Firehouse magazine and the FDNY oral histories (which did not focus on WTC 7). I admittedly only have some sparse quotes too, if my FOIA request is approved then we can compare notes. My suspicion is that the engineer from the office of emergency management was the person who influenced almost all of the foreknowledge of the collapse, and that no person on planet earth can predict the hour in which a giant skyscraper will collapse from fire.
 
MileHighMadness said:
Wow...two big lies back to back.

The structural damage was major and extensive. Seven of the exterior load bearing columns were completely severed by the collapse of the North Tower.

Charred Skeletons? Architects and Structural Engineers who design steel buildings for a living, know steel structures are subject to collapse due to fire. That is why they install sprinkler systems and wrap the steel members in fireproofing.
Click to expand...

Sprinklers are implemented in buildings because nobody wants crap burning all day. What is your source (pre-9/11 preferred) that fireproofing material is applied to structural steel to prevent collapse? It could just be to prevent major warping so repair is easier.
 
MicahJava said:
The "structural damage" was superficial. Source: NIST.
Click to expand...

Sorry, Bucko. NIST never said the structural damage was superficial. They said the structural damage was not the immediate cause of the collapse. Big difference!

Admit it: you haven't read the engineering reports, have you? I'll bet you don't even have copies downloaded to your computer, do you? You're not alone - in just the last week or so, I've shown that FF hasn't read NCSTAR 1-9 (he at least admitted it, and said he had no interest in doing so), and on one of the FB 9/11 pages, I showed that a Truther who's been repeating the same failed WTC Tropes for at least eight years hasn't read them, either. I'm beginning to suspect that there's not a single Truther who's ever actually read them! But how do you expect to persuade the general public, much less professionals, when you haven't even read the reports you're trying to refute?

Try this: Go to NCSTAR 1-9, then search for the word "superficial" with Ctrl+4. I did, and could only find two positive searches, neither of which help you. But maybe you can catch something my elderly eyes missed.

Even better, download and read them. It can't do you any harm, and can only make you smarter. You might even become the smartest Truther in all Trutherdom!
 
Redwood said:
What difference does it make? To the average person, it just proves he was right! The burden is upon you to prove he couldn't possibly be right. I suggest reading standard textbooks on the subject of collapse from fires. It can't do you any harm, and it may even make you smarter.
Click to expand...

I found a free copy of "Collapse of Burning Buildings - A Guide to Fireground Safety" on library genesis, It's post 9/11 but I'll check it out.

Do you think he wasn't a real engineer? Maybe an NWO agent who fooled all the FDNY into believing it would collapse, when their own judgment said it wouldn't?
Click to expand...

I suspect that the engineer knew about a controlled demolition of WTC 7. Experts would have had to design it's collapse if it was a CD.
 
MicahJava said:
Sprinklers are implemented in buildings because nobody wants crap burning all day. What is your source (pre-9/11 preferred) that fireproofing material is applied to structural steel to prevent collapse? It could just be to prevent major warping so repair is easier.
Click to expand...

Wrong...read the Fire/Life/Safety code, it outlines fireproofing requirements and the need for a fire repression systems. You can just make up stupid stuff and call it the truth.

I'm presently working on the design of a cut-and-cover highway tunnel. We are probably going to use prestressed concrete for the roof system, because of the higher fire rating.
 
Redwood said:
Sorry, Bucko. NIST never said the structural damage was superficial. They said the structural damage was not the immediate cause of the collapse. Big difference!

Admit it: you haven't read the engineering reports, have you? I'll bet you don't even have copies downloaded to your computer, do you? You're not alone - in just the last week or so, I've shown that FF hasn't read NCSTAR 1-9 (he at least admitted it, and said he had no interest in doing so), and on one of the FB 9/11 pages, I showed that a Truther who's been repeating the same failed WTC Tropes for at least eight years hasn't read them, either. I'm beginning to suspect that there's not a single Truther who's ever actually read them! But how do you expect to persuade the general public, much less professionals, when you haven't even read the reports you're trying to refute?

Try this: Go to NCSTAR 1-9, then search for the word "superficial" with Ctrl+4. I did, and could only find two positive searches, neither of which help you. But maybe you can catch something my elderly eyes missed.

Even better, download and read them. It can't do you any harm, and can only make you smarter. You might even become the smartest Truther in all Trutherdom!
Click to expand...

"Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7. The building withstood debris impact damage that resulted in seven exterior columns being severed and subsequently withstood fires involving typical office combustibles on several floors for almost seven hours."

"Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires having the same characteristics as those experienced on September 11, 2001."

"Based on photographic evidence, witness accounts, and engineering judgment, it is likely that the structural damage (steel and floor slabs) did not penetrate beyond the perimeter of the building core. At the southwest corner, the structural damage extended only about one-third of the distance from the exterior wall to the building core. The debris also broke a large number of windows on the south face. Compared to the airplane impact damage to the WTC towers, there was relatively little damage to the interior of WTC 7."


http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=861610
 
Captain_Swoop said:
It seems each new Truther is worse than tbe last.
A steady downward spiral.
Click to expand...
Agreed the "downward spiral".

These days most of them are trolls rather than truthers - 'genuine truthers' may be obsessed - may lack understanding - BUT most of them have at least a core interest in truth - provided it doesn't directly conflict with their political agenda. Not so for trolls or Poes.

BUT there are two sides to the causes of the "downward spiral".

If people stopped feeding the trolling egos - stopped giving them the attention which is EXACTLY what they are seeking - most of them would disappear. (Proof of that is easy - I'll bet you have never seen a starving troll....)##
Even for dedicated trolls the "half life" seems to be about 12 - 18 months.

BUT I think is is far more reasonable to expect visually observable aeronautical exploits by members of the genus family suidae BEFORE we will see reduction in troll feeding activities. I'll put my money on the aeronautical suidae BEFORE cessation of troll feeding.


:runaway


## Yeah - I know - but why shouldn't I be allowed to use truther logic. ;)
 
DGM said:
Wouldn't these same expert notice signs that a collapse was inevitable?
Click to expand...

Hayden said in his BBC interview he said the engineer told him "you have about five hours". In a court document, Hayden is quoted saying that the engineer told him that the building will collapse in "five or six hours", and in his words "he was pretty much right on the money because it collapsed at 5 in the afternoon" (the collapse was actually at 5:22 PM).

5:00 PM minus 5 hours is 12:00 PM. 5:00 PM minus 6 hours is 11:00 AM.
5:22 PM minus 5 hours is 12:22 AM. 5:22 PM minus 6 hours is 11:22 AM.

North Tower collapsed at 10:28 AM.

The first photographic evidence for fires in WTC 7 is at 12:10 PM.

What's your timeline for when things like creaking, groaning, and the perimeter bulge were first noticed?
 
MileHighMadness said:
Wrong...read the Fire/Life/Safety code, it outlines fireproofing requirements and the need for a fire repression systems. You can just make up stupid stuff and call it the truth.

I'm presently working on the design of a cut-and-cover highway tunnel. We are probably going to use prestressed concrete for the roof system, because of the higher fire rating.
Click to expand...

Please... quotes. Pre-9/11 sources preferred. On this website you can find many free downloads of ebooks and scientific literature: http://gen.lib.rus.ec/
 
MicahJava said:
Hayden said in his BBC interview he said the engineer told him "you have about five hours". In a court document, Hayden is quoted saying that the engineer told him that the building will collapse in "five or six hours", and in his words "he was pretty much right on the money because it collapsed at 5 in the afternoon" (the collapse was actually at 5:22 PM).

5:00 PM minus 5 hours is 12:00 PM. 5:00 PM minus 6 hours is 11:00 AM.
5:22 PM minus 5 hours is 12:22 AM. 5:22 PM minus 6 hours is 11:22 AM.

North Tower collapsed at 10:28 AM.

The first photographic evidence for fires in WTC 7 is at 12:10 PM.

What's your timeline for when things like creaking, groaning, and the perimeter bulge were first noticed?
Click to expand...
So? Are you accusing this person of being "in on it"?

Do you really believe that the first fires were when the first photo evidence was? Mr Jennings disagrees as does several fire fighters that gave testimony. Were they lying in your professional opinion?
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
So? Are you accusing this person of being "in on it"?
Click to expand...

The engineer? I suspect that he knew about a controlled demolition.

Do you really believe that the first fires were when the first photo evidence was? Mr Jennings disagrees as does several fire fighters that gave testimony. Were they lying in your professional opinion?
Click to expand...

Quotes? Examples?

The last time I brung this up, the answer I got was that the fires simply took an hour and 45 minutes to become large enough to be noticeable to cameras. So the first hard evidence for large fires in the building was at 12:10 PM on 9/11/2001.
 
MicahJava said:
The engineer? I suspect that he knew about a controlled demolition.



Quotes? Examples?

The last time I brung this up, the answer I got was that the fires simply took an hour and 45 minutes to become large enough to be noticeable to cameras. So the first hard evidence for large fires in the building was at 12:10 PM on 9/11/2001.
Click to expand...

That's a lie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom