• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Total Building Collapse from a Single Column Failure

jaydeehess said:
That, it seems to me, would require that the CBTUH never bothered to check back and see what NIST later wrote. That they are unaware now of the stiffeners.
Click to expand...
And what exactly did NIST write about the plates after that.
I challenge you to quote me even just ONE word.
 
jaydeehess said:
Have I asked "60 Minutes" to investigate? Hae I asked AE911T if they have?

No, and no.

If AE911T has asked CBS to investigate I can only imagine why they would not release what CBS's response was.
Click to expand...

They asked FOX and got back this:
 
thedopefishlives said:
I love this idea that thousands of pounds of both dead and live loads can hang off of an 0.75" steel flange if it's properly stiffened. Why don't we build all our buildings like that? Surely it'd save millions of dollars in steel costs not to use 11" wide load-bearing seats and full I-beams, right? When a web and flange with stiffener is even safer than the traditional construction, who wouldn't want to use it?
Click to expand...

He has it so far over the second bolt hole is exposed. With all those loads it would have slipped off or failed way before that point.

Gerrycan, I'll take you to work one day and show you how things fall apart in the real world. :)
 
Justin39640 said:
He has it so far over the second bolt hole is exposed. With all those loads it would have slipped off or failed way before that point.
Click to expand...
Prove that.

Justin39640 said:
Gerrycan, I'll take you to work one day and show you how things fall apart in the real world. :)
Click to expand...
The view is fine from here thanks.

gerrycan said:
And what exactly did NIST write about the plates after that.
I challenge you to quote me even just ONE word.
Click to expand...

Anyone?
 
Last edited:
thedopefishlives said:
I don't know if the girder would fail if pushed 6.25". What I do know is that if you set a steel building on fire and a bunch of floors bracing a long column collapse, that fire-weakened and unbraced column will buckle and cause the building to start falling down. And that is the whole point of the NIST report, which seems to have passed you by completely in the rush to NIST-pick your way into proving the "official story" wrong.
Click to expand...

"Never go full Remo."


:D
 
Justin39640 said:
He has it so far over the second bolt hole is exposed. With all those loads it would have slipped off or failed way before that point.

Gerrycan, I'll take you to work one day and show you how things fall apart in the real world. :)
Click to expand...

The fact remains that the girder could have been pushed much further than the 6.25 inches.....with beam expansion of only a couple of inches.

And that is not even considering girder buckling, column movement eastward, cooking phase shrinkage, creep, etc.

It is why the the tag team clinging for like to the stiffener plates is so comical. :rolleyes:
 
LSSBB said:
You first. Answer: what possible difference it could mean to NIST's analysis, in terms of structural failure?
Click to expand...

NIST should have accounted for all the elements present at the connection in their analysis.
Are you talking for Justin here or yourself?
 
NoahFence said:
speaking of show it, you never did answer my question about the image that you posted.
Why did the heat map only reflect such a small corner of it? Wouldn't it be more accurate to reflect the heat distribution on the entire image?

You know, just to be honest.
Click to expand...

The analysis that counts will be one that is done on the same program that NIST used. If you don't think that what you have seen is correct, then you need to state that clearly. At what point in the westward journey do you say the girder will be overstressed to the point of failure. Why not just type that, you know, just to be honest.
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
That's right. In fact the say " no credibility whatsover". So in all matters brought up by the 'truth movement' that they knew of in 2008, they absolutely reject them all.

Now you are trying to say " but, oh, they did not know about the web stiffeners" and imply that this would cause them to reverse both statements and conclude that NIST is incorrect in that floor structure failure led to unbraced length if col 79 which then failed as the first couple of steps in progression if global collapse; and , that there is now ONE aspect brought up by the 911 truth movement that they deem credible.

That, it seems to me, would require that the CBTUH never bothered to check back and see what NIST later wrote. That they are unaware now of the stiffeners.
Click to expand...

Why doesn't AE911 just endorse what CTBUH said or ask them about the stiffeners? At least CTBUH proposed an alternative collapse mechanism. :confused:

:rolleyes:
 
gerrycan said:
Yeah you're typing way too fast, that's why I don't respond to you very often. You type too fast.... that's it.
Click to expand...
I do, my mom made me take typing class in 69, it help with my engineering work, running simulations back in the FORTRAN days punching thousands of cards to run my engineering work. She made me take the hard course so I could test myself and be an engineer, an attractive extra benefit for being selected to be USAF pilot.

You can't respond to me because you will not contact 60 minutes (oops, you responded to me).

You will not respond to me, yet you did, because you can't do any engineering and present your probable cause for WTC 7 collapse. Did you make those silly videos of woo, to impress gullible people?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4m2HGwOCUE 18 gullible people
There are more, is that your engineering work?

You failed to figure out 19 terrorists did 911. You have failed to do engineering work, and can't comprehend NIST work, or why your petty complaints failed. You come with no idea what happened on 911, and have failed to produce any work to explain 911, which you failed to understand 12 years ago.

"one inch by twelve inches"... lol, you connect dots which have no meaning and fail to present your probable cause. With a failed weak attack on NIST, no wonder you can't take action and report this "serous fraud" to 60 Minutes, or other investigative shows. Because; most likely these shows could do a spot on the fraud of 911 truth, and how it is an anti-intellectual movement based on ignorance. How will this effort against NIST support CD, thermite, and other failed claims by 911 truth.
 
gerrycan said:
The inclusion of the plates increases the required walk off distance.
Click to expand...

And why is that important, in terms of alternate structural failure modes?

You realize that I am exposing the flaw in your supposed outrage at NIST's analysis, and it is obvious to readers the more you avoid the question, don't you?


Wedge document, indeed.
 
LSSBB said:
Why doesn't AE911 just endorse what CTBUH said or ask them about the stiffeners? At least CTBUH proposed an alternative collapse mechanism. :confused:

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
The drawings which proved the relevance of the question asked by the CTBUH in 2008 were not released until some 4 years after. I think that the inclusion of drawing #9114 was a total blunder on the part of NIST and they probably should have kept it tucked away with the rest of the "2000 series" and FW drawings.
It took less than 2 months after the release for us to bring this to the direct attention of NIST.
 
LSSBB said:
And why is that important, in terms of alternate structural failure modes?

You realize that I am exposing the flaw in your supposed outrage at NIST's analysis, and it is obvious to readers the more you avoid the question, don't you?


Wedge document, indeed.
Click to expand...

Not to mention their failure in geometry. :D
 
gerrycan said:
The drawings which proved the relevance of the question asked by the CTBUH in 2008 were not released until some 4 years after. I think that the inclusion of drawing #9114 was a total blunder on the part of NIST and they probably should have kept it tucked away with the rest of the "2000 series" and FW drawings.
It took less than 2 months after the release for us to bring this to the direct attention of NIST.
Click to expand...

That doesn't answer my question, and no points for trying, since it is just another evasion.
 
gerrycan said:
And what exactly did NIST write about the plates after that.
I challenge you to quote me even just ONE word.
Click to expand...

But, you keep saying that NIST "admitted " this and that. So, the CBTUH doesn't know all about that? It also must be blissfully unaware of anything that AE911T has said since 2008 as well. Apparently they were aware of truther claims up to 2008. There is nothing to suggest that they haven't come across anything since then. Of course I don't know for sure.

However, as pointed out ad infinitum, it matters very little.
The sole, only, single observable possible driving force of collapse initiation is the fires,
AND,
The definite most probable cause of the first grossly observable event, the in falling of the EPH, is failure of col 79.

Furthermore, the structural fea indicates that a col 79 would progress to a global collapse in a fashion consistent with the observed collapse.

Stiffener plates are minutia that you are clutching at.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom