DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
I don't think this is an accurate statement. What they did do is look for areas where conditions were likely right to cause these failures. The fire progression/documentation work in my opinion was very good.
Total Building Collapse from a Single Column Failure
- Thread starter JSanderO
- Start date
-
- Tags
- wtc collapse wtc7
I don't think this is an accurate statement. What they did do is look for areas where conditions were likely right to cause these failures. The fire progression/documentation work in my opinion was very good.
Be serious... Well I know you are. But you have to admit:
NIST made up temp data... they had none from the location they used in their model
NIST produced none of the steel from the area they modeled
NIST produced an FEA GIF does not resemble the real world at all
So what use has this exercise been?
Their recommendations you might say?
Anyone graduate engineering student could have made them and written a report in a week. Please this was a waste of our money and an embarrassment. Did they produce some pretty pics, charts and tables? Sure... for $16,000,000 that's not very difficult. They also managed to make several bloopers which they shouldn't have done.
Stop making excuses for getting a lot of nothing which as Shakespeare said is a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.
It's OK... it's not unpatriotic to be honest and call a spade a spade when bureaucracies engage in waste fraud and abuse as NIST did. Was it incompetence or what? It wasn't worth what we were charged.
Why is no one disturbed... or outraged that NIST did not produce and test the steel from the column 79 region of the scenario?
You engineers don't find that peculiar? I find it outrageous.
It's a sign that they are hiding evidence to me... Maybe. They could have produce the steel... what's with that ruse?
Now as for the comment that there are infinite scenarios to explore. Somewhat true and somewhat a dodge.
The building fell down.. right?
When something falls down... what is supporting it... holding it up has lots its ability to perform... SOMETHING LOW DOWN.
IT HAD TO BE SOMEPLACE NEAR THE BOTTOM. <<<< this is undeniable.
How near? Who knows?
Why not in the interest of intellectual honesty... present some sims of failures beginning at the bottom... what they would look like (kinda) and why they were or were not plausible.
And move up from there with the same protocol...
How bout that? too difficult and costly?
Please don't try to tell me this was not possible.
What did NIST do? They said (dismissively without explanation) there was NOTHING OF INTEREST TO THEM BELOW FLOOR 8. HA?????????????????????????????????????
Nothing here move on.... And you guys eat it up like a stack of twinkies.
Well that's easy... Now for some professional NISTian modeling...
How dare you question our expertise or professionalism or our protocol or methodology (Prof James Quitierre was tossed out of NIST for suggesting a more rigorous approach) Curious that.
You engineers don't find that peculiar? I find it outrageous.
It's a sign that they are hiding evidence to me... Maybe. They could have produce the steel... what's with that ruse?
Now as for the comment that there are infinite scenarios to explore. Somewhat true and somewhat a dodge.
The building fell down.. right?
When something falls down... what is supporting it... holding it up has lots its ability to perform... SOMETHING LOW DOWN.
IT HAD TO BE SOMEPLACE NEAR THE BOTTOM. <<<< this is undeniable.
How near? Who knows?
Why not in the interest of intellectual honesty... present some sims of failures beginning at the bottom... what they would look like (kinda) and why they were or were not plausible.
And move up from there with the same protocol...
How bout that? too difficult and costly?
Please don't try to tell me this was not possible.
What did NIST do? They said (dismissively without explanation) there was NOTHING OF INTEREST TO THEM BELOW FLOOR 8. HA?????????????????????????????????????
Nothing here move on.... And you guys eat it up like a stack of twinkies.
Well that's easy... Now for some professional NISTian modeling...
How dare you question our expertise or professionalism or our protocol or methodology (Prof James Quitierre was tossed out of NIST for suggesting a more rigorous approach) Curious that.
Last edited:
ozeco41
Philosopher
Folks we are still chasing Sander's strawman caricature of what NIST actually did.
A, B, D & F Are untrue claims constituting a strawman -repeated three times in that post alone. The strawman claim is that NIST "failed to explain A (i.e. one single) plausible sequence" The true situation is that NIST explained FOUR in detail supported by FEAs. All four resulted in collapse. ONE of them was a "single column failure" situation which actually proves one of Sander's OP points.
C & E are equally false claims about contributions from members here. Reality is that I have put forward fully reasoned responses to BOTH Sanders OP and fact based explanations of the collapse. Other members have also contributed.
G & H are both gross distortions of partial truths. The most prominent "AntiNISTian" poking fun at NIST's models is Sander himself - and he ridicules a strawman caricature he keeps pushing. Sander himself is the one "ignoring or deriding" non "NISTian models and he is the one not providing relevant details.
The BLUE stuff is patronising mother hood truisms which we should all know and which adds nothing but padding.
As I have now said at least twice:
If we are going to keep discussing Sander's strawmen - I'm out of here.
OTHERWISE:
Do we discuss the OP? OR
Do we discuss what really happened INCLUDING what NIST really said?
I am no blind follower of NIST BUT if "disagree with NIST" is the objective let's at least disagree with what NIST said.
Otherwise I stick by my several times repeated (3??) responses to the OP.
A, B, D & F Are untrue claims constituting a strawman -repeated three times in that post alone. The strawman claim is that NIST "failed to explain A (i.e. one single) plausible sequence" The true situation is that NIST explained FOUR in detail supported by FEAs. All four resulted in collapse. ONE of them was a "single column failure" situation which actually proves one of Sander's OP points.
C & E are equally false claims about contributions from members here. Reality is that I have put forward fully reasoned responses to BOTH Sanders OP and fact based explanations of the collapse. Other members have also contributed.
G & H are both gross distortions of partial truths. The most prominent "AntiNISTian" poking fun at NIST's models is Sander himself - and he ridicules a strawman caricature he keeps pushing. Sander himself is the one "ignoring or deriding" non "NISTian models and he is the one not providing relevant details.
The BLUE stuff is patronising mother hood truisms which we should all know and which adds nothing but padding.
As I have now said at least twice:
If we are going to keep discussing Sander's strawmen - I'm out of here.
OTHERWISE:
Do we discuss the OP? OR
Do we discuss what really happened INCLUDING what NIST really said?
I am no blind follower of NIST BUT if "disagree with NIST" is the objective let's at least disagree with what NIST said.
Otherwise I stick by my several times repeated (3??) responses to the OP.
Last edited:
ozeco41
Philosopher
Sander I am well aware and I'm sure other members arwe well aware of your "strongly held views about NIST".
It appears that your opinions are gaining in strength...
...rapidly.
They are not the topic of this - your OP - thread.
Why not set up a separate thread. State your concerns - and what remedy you propose. I will try to respond without using strong words like "obsession" and "disproportionate".
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Two words. "Fire Science". Do you believe in it?
There are times "best guess" is all you got. They didn't ignore the fires you support. They just didn't find any evidence they were significant. You disagree.
Ozzie,
WOW you are running away and trying to make this about logic. That dog is not gonna hunt.
This diagram which you fail to address tells the story of the collapse of the EPH then the WPH and the final bit of the facade bowing inward and coming down as it did.
Do I have to explain it or will you scream straw man as if your hair's on fire?
Yes I do and I attended the seminar at the Christian Regenhard center at Fordam where Professor Quintierre among others made presentations about fire science and the NIST investigation.
As several of those in attendance, who are experts, professors in Fire Science and forensic investigations belief... NIST did an awful job. I was there... I heard them with my own almost deaf ears....
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
They didn't need to complicate the model to the point where it needed to. Actually it did resemble real world, just not to the level of detail you want.
ozeco41
Philosopher
No apology for that.
What topic are you addressing Sander?
A) The OP?
B) NIST was wrong; OR
C) This was how WTC7 collapsed?
strawman:
A straw man, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[3] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having (the "straw man"), and to deny it, without ever having actually denied the original position.[3][4] This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues. In those cases the false victory is often loudly or conspicuously celebrated.
I am not celebrating... I am not
denied a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet inequivalent proposition
That's a rubbish statement.
A straw man, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[3] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having (the "straw man"), and to deny it, without ever having actually denied the original position.[3][4] This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues. In those cases the false victory is often loudly or conspicuously celebrated.
I am not celebrating... I am not
denied a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet inequivalent proposition
That's a rubbish statement.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
I've seen him speak also. He never really had any problems with progression and location. He does think they were too conservative with their recommendations.
addressing a single column failure leading to total building collapse.
Actually they are all somewhat related and interconnected and it's not helpful to isolated them...
No one has addressed A including you... who refer to Euler buckling with is bogus and I showed why....
NIST is wrong for all manner of reasons
C is irrelevant to single column collapse but accounts for why NIST threw out the diversion which you and others are will to buy.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
So why did you bring up his objections if they had no bearing on this discussion? (and I know they don't).
ozeco41
Philosopher
Sander this will be my last post. I do not relish being the only one confronting you.
BUT I will not chase your evasions.
You have repeatedly claimed "that NIST failed to explain A (i.e. one single) plausible sequence". or words to the same effect.
That statement is false. You misrepresent it as being true.
It is a strawman viz - as referenced by you - "...an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position".
Have a good day everyone.
Ozzie,
I like and respect you. In this you are wrong and seemingly can't admit for some reason. If you can't defend the single column failure in general or the column 79 floor 13 one of NIST in particular. So be it.
It is NIST's feet you should be holding to the fire here not mine and hustle off when you have to defend them.
Mark F
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2012
- Messages
- 1,746
Why is your first instinct that NIST is hiding something? Are there not other plausible explanations? Perhaps some worker at Fresh Kills mistakenly cut it up for scrap - who knows? What would NIST be hiding and to what purpose? This seems like standard CT bunk to me - personal incredulity substituting for evidence.
Personally I find the NIST hypothesis plausible and your hypothesis plausible although perhaps slightly less so - but I am no engineer so too much of this is out of my league. What is pretty clear though is that the collapse was natural and it will never be known with certainty what the actual collapse initiator(s) was.
With that and no actual evidence of nefarious intent on the part of NIST I wonder what the purpose of belaboring this is?
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
I don't see why. They did not present the case like you describe.
You seem to be simplifying NIST to advance your argument.
Maybe we need to put your feet to the fire to support your heat source.
Seymour Butz
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2008
- Messages
- 884
No you don't. You're just pulling your beliefs outta thin air...
I find it sad that although you are an architect and therefore educated, you seem to believe - or at the very least require in your scenario of disbelief - that the floor collapse on 13 would leave the "other 3 sides" of column 79 in pristine condition and doing their "bracing" job as designed.
That's ludicrous....