Total Building Collapse from a Single Column Failure

[Robrob]

Yeah, that whole hypothesis fails on so many levels, not least because the hijackers were mainly Saudis, not Iraqis. If THEY™ wanted to frame Iraq, THEY™ would've used Iraqi hijackers in the plot. Duh.

That alone debunks the False Flag myth.

Using Truther "logic," FDR planned Pearl Harbor so he could invade Indonesia.

 

[DGM]

Thanks.

" NIST will not release the input data (files) because doing so might "jeopardize public safety" and read the letter.

This part is true (with my bold). NIST does not want every Tom, Dick and Mary to be able to play with this data. If you are a competent engineer however, they did give you all the data need to reproduce the simulations. AE 9/11 has none (and they will never spend the money to do the work).

Ask them specifically what data is missing? Bet they won't answer.

 

[alienentity]

response:-


I'm not sure that the best possible explanation is one that has never happened before or since and can only be proved possible with a computer model with the data used unavailabe to independent researchers .

Demolition of 110 story steelframe towers after jet crashes and while on fire by thermite/thermate/nanothermite which not only cannot be proved by visual means but has never been proved possible with a computer model (so obviously no data avalable!) is an even worse explanation.
Your crude summary method works even better AGAINST the 'Inside Job' hypothesis than it does for it. LOL

What significant differences do the collapse of wtc 7 to other other bottom down controlled demolition collapses ?

Firstly, WTC 7's collapse was not a controlled demolition, so let's correct your language and compare it to 'real, verified controlled demolitions'.
Real controlled demolitions require months of preparation, most notably the removal of insulation, wall materials and so on to gain access to the structural steel in the hundreds of key locations needed to bring about the CD properly.
The explosive charges need to be connected by wires (find us one that doesn't use wires if you claim not) which have to be routed correctly to some safe location where the demolition can be initiated.
No controlled demolition in history has been carried out on a building without the building's occupants being fully aware that it was going to happen. Just. Never. Happens. Any. Other. Way.
No explosive controlled demolition happens without very loud explosions easily recorded and heard as the building starts to fall from the same distance that cameras and people were located from WTC 7, for example. Yet no camera recorded any explosions at the initiation of collapse of WTC 7!!
No controlled demolition in history has ever been attempted while a building was experiencing uncontrolled, multi-story fires. Both conventional explosives and nanothermite would be destroyed by fires so even if you accept the premise that it might have been possible to wire and rig the building with nobody noticing, the fires would certainly have destroyed plenty of critical wiring or cutter charges. either rendering the CD inoperable or incomplete.

The CD hypothesis requires far more improbable and unseen elements and processes, none of which have any direct evidence to support them, than the conventional explanation.
Even if you leap over these gaps of credibility, you still can't find a way across the chasm of lack of explosions at the time of collapse. Nobody can, and nobody will.

A real CD of WTC 7 would have required hundreds of precisely timed explosive charges, on the perimeter as well, which would have been easy to spot. Obviously that never happened. For all those reasons we can rule out CD as a reasonable cause for the collapse. QED.

 

[DGM]

A real CD of WTC 7 would have required hundreds of precisely timed explosive charges, on the perimeter as well, which would have been easy to spot.

This is not actually true. Explosives placed at the same area that NIST determined was the initiation area would yield the same effect.

The sound/blast effect, none the less would not be easily concealed.

 

[stevemcqueen]

he's getting pissed.

How the fook do I know if its missing ? It's obviously important for AE911 to verify the tests or they wouldn't be asking for it.

You claimed it was all available and it clearly isn't , so what data relating to the collapse of a building by fire is being withheld because it might jeopardize public safety?



You tell me if you're so confident it doesn't matter.

 

[DGM]

he's getting pissed.

Why would I care? He should be mad that his only engineering organisation is so incompetent. It is all available, tell him to read the report. Does he want me to point out every piece of data? Does he need me to quote the sections in the report? I can't help it if he fell for their lies.

Did you ask him what inputs (specifically) they don't have?

 

[stevemcqueen]

he responded

First you said it was all available , then you said it's understandable if they hold some back from every tom dick and mary , now it is all available

 

[DGM]

he responded

What part of "competent engineer" does he not get? I said it was all there if you understood and could use the data, this is true.

Ask him again specifically, what data is missing that they need to reproduce the simulation? There is none, the fact they told him there was is not my problem.

Why does he believe they're telling the truth where I have pointed to the report that proves they're lying?

 

[alienentity]

This is not actually true. Explosives placed at the same area that NIST determined was the initiation area would yield the same effect.

The sound/blast effect, none the less would not be easily concealed.

I'm referring to the CD truthers are insisting happened. They claim that all the support was removed simultaneously by explosives.

I guess that's why they never try to create a model demonstrating the hypothesis because it doesn't fit with the observed collapse, as I said.

 

[Robrob]

I'm referring to the CD truthers are insisting happened. They claim that all the support was removed simultaneously by explosives.

I guess that's why they never try to create a model demonstrating the hypothesis because it doesn't fit with the observed collapse, as I said.

According to their "theory" (whenever they actually attempt to posit one) the WTC1-2 was pre-wired for demo around the 80th floor and below. One of the more hilarious incongruities in their myth is the thought even the most professional CIA ninjas would be able to wire a building for demo - that could withstand both a jet impact and an hour plus of out of control fires.

It's claims like those that highlight why they are insane.

 

[JSanderO]

OP:

Total Building Collapse from a Single Column Failure
NIST makes the case that the failure of column 79 on floor 13 apparently caused by a girder walking off its beam seat at column 79 led pretty quickly to the collapse of the entire building leaving nothing standing at all.

I wonder... how universal this actually is?

Would column 79 failing at floor 29 have caused the global collapse?

Would any other single column failing on any floor lead to global collapse?

Could any single column failing on any other floor NOT lead to global collapse? (I don't suspect the failure of a column at the roof level would.) If so why or why not?

Is this single column failure applicable to any multi story high rise? Would it have to be steel framed? Would it have to be a minimum building height? Would there have to be a minimum number of floors above the failed column?

If the single column failure global collapse outcome is not more or less universally applicable what was it about 7 WTC's design and column failure at floor 13 that allowed for a single column failure to lead to global collapse?

Should NIST have discussed this or not?

 

[jaydeehess]

Well here's his response.

It seems that most posters believe the official story of the collapse of WTC7 because of the so called "proof" offered by the NIST computer generated theory of progressive collapse. This is continually being offered up as absolute proof there was no possibity of CD ( I only see it as "proof of a possibility , but thats not the point here)

Genuine questions

Given that the total collapse of a steel building was unprecented and unquestionably resembles a CD , did you believe it was due to fire before the report came out , if so , why ?

Why did you believe the story between the years 2001 and 2008 before the report was even published? What "proof" did you have then ?

Surely if you believed it collapsed due to fire between those years , you were believing something on no evidence whatsover but merely believing what you were told.

That is not a response.
That is changing the subject.

 

[jaydeehess]

he's getting pissed.

Poor baby. This exact inquiry has been posed several times in the past.

What 'verification' does AE911T want to do? Apparently they want to check NIST input data and rerun the same fea that NIST did. That is not research. That is a witch hunt.
There is NOTHING stopping ae911t from running an fea with input parameters they arrive at through research.

Yet they refuse to do any research of their own.
WHY?

 

[jaydeehess]

JSO, NIST was tasked with coming up with a most plausible scenario. There may, check that...are others your pet theory being one.

 

[ozeco41]

... Yet they refuse to do any research of their own.
WHY?

They have no one competent who is prepared to put his name on technical claims in the public arena.

T Sz is put forward as one of their leading lights and his limits of competence have been shown clearly on this and other forums on many occasions.

They may have someone more competent but I doubt it.

 

[stevemcqueen]

response

Sorry but you're going to have to spell it out for me

Why was any part of the data (3370 files) relating to a "fire induced collapse" withheld even for a day ?

What possible jeopardy is the public in if independent researchers know this data ? why the secrecy ? is it just to get tongues wagging and encourage conspiracy theories ?

sorry to be a pain , but i really really don't get it

 

[DGM]

response:

Sorry but you're going to have to spell it out for me

Why was any part of the data (3370 files) relating to a "fire induced collapse" withheld even for a day ?

What possible jeopardy is the public in if independent researchers know this data ? why the secrecy ? is it just to get tongues wagging and encourage conspiracy theories ?

sorry to be a pain , but i really really don't get it

It's not really about the data files it's about the methodology used to run the FEA. Using this information it wouldn't be hard to figure weaknesses in other structures and possibly make them targets.

The point is moot for qualified engineers. They can duplicate the FEA. Like I said the structural data is in the report.

AE doesn't want the data files, they only want to complain that they can't get them.

 

[JSanderO]

Clearly there is insufficient data or information about the conditions to come up with an explanation with a high degree of certainty. NIST's column 79 scenario is a an example of one with low degree of certainly, but not entirely impossible... just, in my opinion highly improbable. Their own FEA using a column 79 failure does not match the real world building movements. So their own FEA undermines the theory they advanced.. One wonders why they couldn't get the FEA to better match real world movements of failing that come up with one theory and FEA which did.

While there is no evidence of CD and that cited by truthers amounts to rubbish... the single column failure in my opinion remains highly speculative and not demonstrated unless one accepts the NIST FEA. But again... they made up the inputs so it's all pretty theoretical.

Right?

 

[jaydeehess]

Clearly there is insufficient data or information about the conditions to come up with an explanation with a high degree of certainty. NIST's column 79 scenario is a an example of one with low degree of certainly, but not entirely impossible... just, in my opinion highly improbable. Their own FEA using a column 79 failure does not match the real world building movements. So their own FEA undermines the theory they advanced.. One wonders why they couldn't get the FEA to better match real world movements of failing that come up with one theory and FEA which did.

While there is no evidence of CD and that cited by truthers amounts to rubbish... the single column failure in my opinion remains highly speculative and not demonstrated unless one accepts the NIST FEA. But again... they made up the inputs so it's all pretty theoretical.Right?

Who are you asking?
or is this a rhetorical question?

 

[jaydeehess]

response

Actually he hasn't really "responded" to anything as far as I can see. This is the closest he has come but I suspect there is a topic change a-comin' again soon.

Still waiting for an outline of the legititimate use to which AE911T wishes to put this information to.

THAT, IMO, is what NIST is getting at. If a qualified group can show that they will professionally utilize this data they may release it.

OTOH, if AE911T, which has done no actual engineering research to date, only wishes to snipe and nitpick the data then NIST is fully within their pervue to ignore the requests.

Indeed it is completely unnecessary for AE911T to have this data. All they need do is exactly what the engineers at NIST did, research the situation in WTC 7 to come up with input data such as various fuel loads, door placements (in fact that part is easy, NIST made available the floor plans and states that they assumed all doors to be open), initial fire areas (again easy peasy, NIST illustrates this in their animation), air infiltration (once again actually described by NIST in the reports and there are pictures with which to determine what windows were broken) etc., then run an fire sim of their own choosing and programming and compare with what NIST came up with.

THEN, maybe, NIST might be persuaded to release their data set to allow comparison in the technical community.

Nothing AE911T has ever done suggests it is operating as a technical organization.

Time for AE911T to DO SOMETHING instead of just send Gage globe trotting on a never ending PR campaign.