Animal
Master Poster
And don't forget you have been told multiple times that END PLATES are not the same as WEB STIFFENERS.
And don't forget, the CTBUH still believed in fire / structural failure as the cause, not some fantasy CD.
- Status
And don't forget you have been told multiple times that END PLATES are not the same as WEB STIFFENERS.
And don't forget, the CTBUH still believed in fire / structural failure as the cause, not some fantasy CD.
Grizzly Bear
このマスクに&#
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,963
Here is a novel iea for everyone.
Take the nist critique offered at face value. My question to the main respondants then is WHAT DO THE CHANGES DO TO THE END OUTCOME?
DISAGREEMENT with the Nist at this level of detail is around. Got it. The CBUTH sees their position as still finding the general fire cause of collapse as the end result. BUT that area of building code issues may be worth further examination.
DO THE CRITICS HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY REGARDING THAT?
Take the nist critique offered at face value. My question to the main respondants then is WHAT DO THE CHANGES DO TO THE END OUTCOME?
DISAGREEMENT with the Nist at this level of detail is around. Got it. The CBUTH sees their position as still finding the general fire cause of collapse as the end result. BUT that area of building code issues may be worth further examination.
DO THE CRITICS HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY REGARDING THAT?
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
And don't forget you have been told multiple times that END PLATES are not the same as WEB STIFFENERS.
And don't forget, the CTBUH still believed in fire / structural failure as the cause, not some fantasy CD.
Well, if Girder vs. Beam continues to be a challenge, expecting End Plate vs. Web Stiffiner differentiation my be too much for us to expect. Just as we are repeatedly learning that Ziggi could use some assistance in understanding what finite element methods actually do.
Ok, so I'll take Ziggi's answer as the only thing he can do to answer the question (it doesn't really give an example, as requested, but at least he addresses it partially).
So in exchange, I owed him a reply to his post 3970, and here it is.
__________
Neither of these elements has any role in restraining the column the way he claimed, as I proved:
http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/H3016-P3016-B2002-C79.jpg
CTBUH actually said end plate and fin plate connections, not stiffeners. Gerry confirms that they said end plates:
He repeated that mistake in many instances.
When I asked for clarification on what fire was he talking about, it became clear he referred to an 8 hour, not 29 hour, fire in 2013, not in 2009, where only the plastic trim of the façade burned, while the fire suppression systems were fully functional and prevented the fire from extending to any structural parts of the building. But he kept digging the hole:
(I showed him and you what fire actually does to steel structures even in high rises, with these two images of the Windsor building showing only the concrete core standing, and the steel perimeter collapsed. http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/windsor-antes.jpg http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/windsor-despues.jpg)
(but that was proven to be false: the column did not retain any lateral support from east)
He accused me of misrepresenting an illustration here because, he said, there was no damage in the vertical direction to the connection between A2001 and C79, when discussing whether C79 could displace east (and therefore with no significance about vertical connections):
So I did as he asked, proving his mistake:
And then he kept digging the hole:
(when the figure clearly shows such damage).
Another mistake - he confused floors 10, 11, 12 which NIST talked about with floor 13, the illustration of which he used to make that claim. I even had to show him this figure as he was stubbornly clinging to that mistake: http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/cache/NCSTAR1-9vol2fig11-34-small.png
As has been proved beyond doubt, NIST's "(Frankel 1985)" was a bibliographic reference that included the year as most bibliographic references do, and did not refer to drawing 1985.
Ironically, he said:
Yet he has not practised that noble art that he has predicated. I did, several times, as evidenced along the thread. I've only seen him acknowledge one mistake of the numerous ones (exclusively about the date of 2013 for the Chechnya fire mentioned above, not about the duration of the fire or the extent of damage):
So, If anything, he has been ridiculed for all those numerous mistakes, which still stand and none of which (except that one date) has he admitted, proving lack of honesty in his debating tactics.
On the contrary, he tried to ridicule other members:
So, that's one more thing you got backwards. It's him who owes an apology to several people here.
Anyway, and back to the topic, as gerrycan himself has noted, asking is the proper thing to do when there's a disputed claim:
So in exchange, I owed him a reply to his post 3970, and here it is.
__________
Because it's not into question, except by people whose premise is considering the report is false and walk backwards from there, seeking to find flaws in it at all costs in order to prove it.
No, it was not a flaw. I started looking into that when it was put into question by the kind of people I mentioned above.
Jumping to conclusions again, shooting first and asking later. Why not ask the source?
Ridiculed? gerrycan has made many false statements along this thread, all by himself, that have nothing to do with his conjecture (not an assessment, a conjecture) of the impossibility of the 6.25 inch displacement. Nowhere in the thread is the 6.25" issue the subject of any ridiculing from me. He dug a hole for himself with many other assertions that have little or nothing to do with that:
Neither of these elements has any role in restraining the column the way he claimed, as I proved:
http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/H3016-P3016-B2002-C79.jpg
CTBUH actually said end plate and fin plate connections, not stiffeners. Gerry confirms that they said end plates:
He repeated that mistake in many instances.
When I asked for clarification on what fire was he talking about, it became clear he referred to an 8 hour, not 29 hour, fire in 2013, not in 2009, where only the plastic trim of the façade burned, while the fire suppression systems were fully functional and prevented the fire from extending to any structural parts of the building. But he kept digging the hole:
(I showed him and you what fire actually does to steel structures even in high rises, with these two images of the Windsor building showing only the concrete core standing, and the steel perimeter collapsed. http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/windsor-antes.jpg http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/windsor-despues.jpg)
(but that was proven to be false: the column did not retain any lateral support from east)
He accused me of misrepresenting an illustration here because, he said, there was no damage in the vertical direction to the connection between A2001 and C79, when discussing whether C79 could displace east (and therefore with no significance about vertical connections):
So I did as he asked, proving his mistake:
And then he kept digging the hole:
(when the figure clearly shows such damage).
Another mistake - he confused floors 10, 11, 12 which NIST talked about with floor 13, the illustration of which he used to make that claim. I even had to show him this figure as he was stubbornly clinging to that mistake: http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/cache/NCSTAR1-9vol2fig11-34-small.png
As has been proved beyond doubt, NIST's "(Frankel 1985)" was a bibliographic reference that included the year as most bibliographic references do, and did not refer to drawing 1985.
Ironically, he said:
Yet he has not practised that noble art that he has predicated. I did, several times, as evidenced along the thread. I've only seen him acknowledge one mistake of the numerous ones (exclusively about the date of 2013 for the Chechnya fire mentioned above, not about the duration of the fire or the extent of damage):
So, If anything, he has been ridiculed for all those numerous mistakes, which still stand and none of which (except that one date) has he admitted, proving lack of honesty in his debating tactics.
On the contrary, he tried to ridicule other members:
Anyway, and back to the topic, as gerrycan himself has noted, asking is the proper thing to do when there's a disputed claim:
The fact that NIST were asked by the CTBUH about additiinal elements added to reinforce the girder leaves NIST no excuse for not going to the drawings, checking and seeing the stiffener plates. They should have amended the final report to account for their presence.
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
What is your theory as to the difference it would make?
How would it have changed the dynamics of the collapses by a noticed margin?
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Either way, did they get it wrong also? They agree with NIST is the principle cause.
Animal
Master Poster
And you still don't get it.
They were not included....ON PURPOSE......just as elements that did not exist were added.....ON PURPOSE.
Only the uneducated troofers keep insisting that it changes the outcome = CD
Duh.
Clearly the building would have remained standing, clinging on to life by ~3/4" of very thin steel. gerrycan, Ziggi and all adhere to this belief.
The only alternative explanation is that ninjas rigged it for CD months or years in advance, knowing that another nearby building was definitely going to collapse and set fires in it, allowing for a fraudulent NIST report to cover it all up as fire-induced. The whole business having been planned to destroy incriminating financial records that couldn't be destroyed by any other means.
Double duh.
NIST should undertake analysis to see what their travel distance required for walk off estimate should have been was close enough with the elements that they had not yet accounted for included. Theres already an inch to be deducted from the expansion figure to allow for the beams east connection failing.
Dont you think that the opinion of the CTBUH on the initiating event is importrant ?
No. You should explain how anyone could ever have guaranteed that WTC7 would be hit, such that this coverup might even be made possible.
But you won't.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Do you? If you do, why are you arguing this under conspiracy theories? What would be the conspiracy?
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
No NIST Modeled a building that was damaged with unquantifiable details as to
Damage, they took the most logical approach.
There was likely more damage from the Impacts than NIST included in the Models,
However because that damage was unquantifiable NIST Left it out.
NIST simply found most likely cause.
That is Why I was looking for photos of the upper roofline, damage to the upper roofline
Would have indicated an impact.
If the upper roof line is damaged in the right place damage could be induced into the bolts on the upper part of the column structure allowing more movement in the column.
I was thinking of the CTBUH comments, that combined with a shutter or a vidration in the fires could have induced walk off with less expansion.
However even that would not void The NIST theory, on thermal expansion and fire being the initiating cause of the collapse.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Ok, so I'll take Ziggi's answer as the only thing he can do to answer the question (it doesn't really give an example, as requested, but at least he addresses it partially).
So in exchange, I owed him a reply to his post 3970, and here it is.
__________
Because it's not into question, except by people whose premise is considering the report is false and walk backwards from there, seeking to find flaws in it at all costs in order to prove it.
No, it was not a flaw. I started looking into that when it was put into question by the kind of people I mentioned above.
Jumping to conclusions again, shooting first and asking later. Why not ask the source?
Ridiculed? gerrycan has made many false statements along this thread, all by himself, that have nothing to do with his conjecture (not an assessment, a conjecture) of the impossibility of the 6.25 inch displacement. Nowhere in the thread is the 6.25" issue the subject of any ridiculing from me. He dug a hole for himself with many other assertions that have little or nothing to do with that:
Neither of these elements has any role in restraining the column the way he claimed, as I proved:
http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/H3016-P3016-B2002-C79.jpg
CTBUH actually said end plate and fin plate connections, not stiffeners. Gerry confirms that they said end plates:
He repeated that mistake in many instances.
When I asked for clarification on what fire was he talking about, it became clear he referred to an 8 hour, not 29 hour, fire in 2013, not in 2009, where only the plastic trim of the façade burned, while the fire suppression systems were fully functional and prevented the fire from extending to any structural parts of the building. But he kept digging the hole:
(I showed him and you what fire actually does to steel structures even in high rises, with these two images of the Windsor building showing only the concrete core standing, and the steel perimeter collapsed. http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/windsor-antes.jpg http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/windsor-despues.jpg)
(but that was proven to be false: the column did not retain any lateral support from east)
He accused me of misrepresenting an illustration here because, he said, there was no damage in the vertical direction to the connection between A2001 and C79, when discussing whether C79 could displace east (and therefore with no significance about vertical connections):
So I did as he asked, proving his mistake:
And then he kept digging the hole:
(when the figure clearly shows such damage).
Another mistake - he confused floors 10, 11, 12 which NIST talked about with floor 13, the illustration of which he used to make that claim. I even had to show him this figure as he was stubbornly clinging to that mistake: http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/cache/NCSTAR1-9vol2fig11-34-small.png
As has been proved beyond doubt, NIST's "(Frankel 1985)" was a bibliographic reference that included the year as most bibliographic references do, and did not refer to drawing 1985.
Ironically, he said:
Yet he has not practised that noble art that he has predicated. I did, several times, as evidenced along the thread. I've only seen him acknowledge one mistake of the numerous ones (exclusively about the date of 2013 for the Chechnya fire mentioned above, not about the duration of the fire or the extent of damage):
So, If anything, he has been ridiculed for all those numerous mistakes, which still stand and none of which (except that one date) has he admitted, proving lack of honesty in his debating tactics.
On the contrary, he tried to ridicule other members:
So, that's one more thing you got backwards. It's him who owes an apology to several people here.
Anyway, and back to the topic, as gerrycan himself has noted, asking is the proper thing to do when there's a disputed claim:
# oysteinbookmark
Beautiful! This summary sets a standard. Gerrycan has A LOT to answer.
Gerrycan, you should... do a whole lot before continuing to point fingers:
- Admit to ALL the errors that pgimeno documented in the above quoted post
- Apologize to ALL the users you ridiculed, when it was you who was wrong on so much
Well, certainly their opinion that the overall conclusions would not change is important, in the context of this forum and thread. Very important. Because unlike what "truthers" are pushing for, they agree that chapters 4 and 5 of NCSTAR 1A (which are the conclusions of the report) remain valid, no matter any differences in the details of the initiating event.
And it's also important that no matter whether the column displacement happened before or after the girder walk off in NIST's scenario, the fact that it could have happened before puts to rest the question of whether the building could have collapsed due to fire.
Let me say it again: WTC7 could have collapsed due to fire, and the NIST report proves that.
And that goes also for Ziggi, as I also said I would explain the various problems with the timeline. That is one.
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,092
My parser asploded; can you rephrase that?
Okay, minus the snark: NIST apparently doesn't think they left out anything important, and "truthers" wouldn't trust a NIST re-analysis any more than the original, anyway. Any progress updates from your team?
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
OK, so you do think that opinions expressed by the CTBUH are important?
Let's go to another very specifically expressed CTBUH opinion.
The one in which they expressly state that they do not support ANY conspiracy theory concerning 9/11 whatsoever. Is that opinion important?
After you answer that question are we done here with the CTBUH?
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
No, no, no, no, no. You've got it all wrong. According to the Jowenko Principle, anyone who agrees with the conspiracy theorists on some details, but not on others, is clearly infallible on those specific details on which they agree, and clearly mistaken on those on which they disagree, with said conspiracy theorists. Therefore, if the CTBUH disagrees with NIST on the finer details of the results of NIST's computer modelling, then notwithstanding the fact that they cannot be considered particularly authoritative on the outputs of computer models they did not in fact run themselves, they are nevertheless entirely correct; on the more general conclusion that WTC7 collapsed due to fire damage, on which they may claim considerable authority, they are nevertheless clearly mistaken.
In a forthcoming post, someone will no doubt explain why the above is the only reasonable view to take. I await it with interest.
Dave
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Hilited >> Yes!
Firefighters reported an elevator car had been ejected from its shaft on, iirc, the fifth floor. While that may indicate impact damage to core structure its not conclusive, so its not in initial conditions.
NIST denotes the walk of many times as the most probable cause. That's because there is no other known proximate cause of col 79 buckling. However it is understood with an even higher confidence that col 79 failure was involved as a major point of the progression to global collapse.
AE911T has endorsed Chandler's argument that all columns, perimeter and interior must have been explosively demolished at the same time. This is a fantasy that completely ignores the obvious, the infalling of the EPH and subsequent formation of the vertical "kink" from roof line to bottom of all videos from the north. THAT very definitively illustrates a loss of col 79. (TSz's opinion that the EPH infalling is loss of the column only a few storeys below the roof is ridiculous, and requires more explosives)
There is no evidence of any other factors in the demise of WTC 7 other than the impact from WTC 1 debris and the following unfought fires. The most major fire in the vicinity of col 79 is therefore the most probable driver of column 79 failure, either directly (not probable) or indirectly(by floor failures and subsequent column instability).
Debating minutia is all that is left for 911T. Even if AE911T's contention that 5.5 inches only brings the girder to within about an inch of coming off its seat can we therefore say with certainty, as AE911T does, that this girder could not fail?
Absolutely not, imho of course. Did other factors come into play? Most likely!
Can they be quantified, probably not. was there core damage by impact? If so would that stress the area around col 79?
If there was an amount of computing power and processing speed orders of magnitude greater than what is now available, and IF it were possible to account for orders of magnitude more initial data points, THEN maybe one could account for more, less contributory, factors than beam expansion.
AE911T aims for the uncertainty and makes the argument from ignorance then that since NIST cannot account for moving this girder absolutely fully past its seat that >>>>> deliberate demolition must be in play. From there it has its proponents ie. Chandler, claim explosive (not merely thermite) demolition of ALL columns to account for a free fall acceleration lasting a couple of seconds and beginning 2 and a half seconds AFTER the final pahse of global collapse.
NO, relevant professional organization or group agrees with this. Its a fantasy, a fiction, a horror story for paranoid parents to use to scare their kids about the big bad world.
But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
Hilited >> Yes!
Firefighters reported an elevator car had been ejected from its shaft on, iirc, the fifth floor. While that may indicate impact damage to core structure its not conclusive, so its not in initial conditions.
NIST denotes the walk of many times as the most probable cause. That's because there is no other known proximate cause of col 79 buckling. However it is understood with an even higher confidence that col 79 failure was involved as a major point of the progression to global collapse.
AE911T has endorsed Chandler's argument that all columns, perimeter and interior must have been explosively demolished at the same time. This is a fantasy that completely ignores the obvious, the infalling of the EPH and subsequent formation of the vertical "kink" from roof line to bottom of all videos from the north. THAT very definitively illustrates a loss of col 79. (TSz's opinion that the EPH infalling is loss of the column only a few storeys below the roof is ridiculous, and requires more explosives)
There is no evidence of any other factors in the demise of WTC 7 other than the impact from WTC 1 debris and the following unfought fires. The most major fire in the vicinity of col 79 is therefore the most probable driver of column 79 failure, either directly (not probable) or indirectly(by floor failures and subsequent column instability).
Debating minutia is all that is left for 911T. Even if AE911T's contention that 5.5 inches only brings the girder to within about an inch of coming off its seat can we therefore say with certainty, as AE911T does, that this girder could not fail?
Absolutely not, imho of course. Did other factors come into play? Most likely!
Can they be quantified, probably not. was there core damage by impact? If so would that stress the area around col 79?
If there was an amount of computing power and processing speed orders of magnitude greater than what is now available, and IF it were possible to account for orders of magnitude more initial data points, THEN maybe one could account for more, less contributory, factors than beam expansion.
AE911T aims for the uncertainty and makes the argument from ignorance then that since NIST cannot account for moving this girder absolutely fully past its seat that >>>>> deliberate demolition must be in play. From there it has its proponents ie. Chandler, claim explosive (not merely thermite) demolition of ALL columns to account for a free fall acceleration lasting a couple of seconds and beginning 2 and a half seconds AFTER the final pahse of global collapse.
NO, relevant professional organization or group agrees with this. Its a fantasy, a fiction, a horror story for paranoid parents to use to scare their kids about the big bad world.
But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Just looking at it out of curiosity, it takes such small impacts to damage the structure, was just Wondering if an off center strike could have had the same effect on building 7 as they did in the twin towers collapses.
By disconnection of components bolts and welds.
I noticed in the videos years ago a good sized mass that appears to be on the right trajectory to impact
the critical area in question, it would only take a small glancing blow to do considerable damage.
Last edited:
- Status