'What about building 7'?

[carlitos]

Keeping the exchange focused on the technical, and completely devoid of context, is how Dick Gage travels the world for years now. I guess it is a "far better approach" for some, but I can also see how it irks honest people.

 

[DGM]

Keeping the exchange focused on the technical, and completely devoid of context, is how Dick Gage travels the world for years now. I guess it is a "far better approach" for some, but I can also see how it irks honest people.

It also causes real engineering professionals to lose interest quickly. Explains the dismal acceptance they have received.

 

[gerrycan]

The problem is you fail to do this. You focus only on the technical that you deem important.

The technical detail surrounding the initiating event is being focused on and discussed. Which bit do you think is unimportant?

 

[DGM]

The technical detail surrounding the initiating event is being focused on and discussed. Which bit do you think is unimportant?

The fact it's taken in isolation. How does what you claim relate to all the other elements that lead to NIST making that conclusion?

 

[gerrycan]

Keeping the exchange focused on the technical, and completely devoid of context, is how Dick Gage travels the world for years now. I guess it is a "far better approach" for some, but I can also see how it irks honest people.

How do you know it irks honest people?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

It goes back to what i and a few others pointed out previously. The discussion of The entire conclusion falling into question based on one isolated detail wothout consideration either for adjacent condition around the point of interest or for alternative options that generally may affect code recommendations but not the overall

 

[carlitos]

The technical detail surrounding the initiating event is being focused on and discussed. Which bit do you think is unimportant?

The initiating events were 2 plane crashes. I haven't seen you address those technical issues at all.

How do you know it irks honest people?

I'm honest, and it irks me. Sample size of 1. Most of us resent those like Gage who fleece the gullible.

 

[Animal]

I think that this is a far better approach

It is a better approach to keeping the hamster wheel spinning, but that is about all.

and it is to some extent keeping this exchange fuccused on the technical.

Keeping the exchange focused on the technical? LMAO.....THat is the equivalent of saying you are keeping the focus on automotive engineering by talking about a chip in the windshield.

I can understand why that has irked you.

Irked? Hardly.........this is a little relaxation from the real world of putting building together. It is only troofers that think any posting here will seriously accomplish anything. The realists know better.

And who you callin a liar?

If the shoe fits...................

It's rude and very ironic.

Looking in the mirror?

 

[jaydeehess]

Technically the true initiating events happened at 9:59 and 10:28 AM. This is just another case were gerrycan and co. want to narrow the scope. Unless he's suggesting we mandate all building are able to cope with what happened that day (a recommendation that could never pass) he has to admit, the NIST covered the bases fairly well.

It gets a bit scattered when the point comes up wrt AE911T just what this event was. Even just considering WTC7 (never mind the towers), while Gerry, Ziggi, and T.Sz. dispute the girder walk off, we seem to see acceptance of Chandler's conclusion that free fall during a period only 1.5 seconds prior to the entire building being rubble and a full 12 seconds after initiation. However, that would require that NIST now be wrong about a loss of col79 leading to global collapse and would require that this destruction of all perimeter columns to get free fall occur when its pretty obvious that the building was going to be rubble anyway, perimeter explosives or not.
MM already threw Chandler out, Szamboti opines some nonsense about extra explosives to simply make it look like col79 failed, we don't know what Gerry and Ziggi think initiated collapse let alone any other part of the WTC7 collapse sequence.
Then there are the towers and flight 93 and the Pentagon. Are they all inside jobby jobs? If so how were they done?
Why WTC7? I know I never heard of it prior to 9/11, it had no more importance than WTC3,4,5 or 6 and each of them were destroyed some suffering even more widespread fires ( as a percentage of floorspace) than #7.

Truthers think WTC7 is a 'smoking gun' put their entire premise concerning it begs more questions that they can answer than it could possibly answer by way of explaining its demise

 

[gerrycan]

The fact it's taken in isolation. How does what you claim relate to all the other elements that lead to NIST making that conclusion?

To look at the C79-44 girder and the beams framing into it in isolation has the value of attaining a realistic distance that the girder would need to travel in order to walk off.
For sure things have to be viewed in context of the whole structure, but as always the devil is in the detail. For example, do you think that the girder would expand enough at the given temp to become trapped on the inside of the side plate on the west face of the column?

 

[NoahFence]

How do you know it irks honest people?

It doesn't irk truthers.

 

[DGM]

To look at the C79-44 girder and the beams framing into it in isolation has the value of attaining a realistic distance that the girder would need to travel in order to walk off.
For sure things have to be viewed in context of the whole structure, but as always the devil is in the detail. For example, do you think that the girder would expand enough at the given temp to become trapped on the inside of the side plate on the west face of the column?

Didn't answer my question. How does this connection relate when viewed with the whole 16 story model the NIST used to make it's determination. Are the thousands of other elements and their response unimportant? In order to determine how much each element contributes all must be considered. You focus on one area, the NIST looked at 16 stories. Why run a costly FEA if it's as simple as you claim?

 

[Animal]

It gets a bit scattered when the point comes up wrt AE911T just what this event was. Even just considering WTC7 (never mind the towers), while Gerry, Ziggi, and T.Sz. dispute the girder walk off, we seem to see acceptance of Chandler's conclusion that free fall during a period only 1.5 seconds prior to the entire building being rubble and a full 12 seconds after initiation. However, that would require that NIST now be wrong about a loss of col79 leading to global collapse and would require that this destruction of all perimeter columns to get free fall occur when its pretty obvious that the building was going to be rubble anyway, perimeter explosives or not.
MM already threw Chandler out, Szamboti opines some nonsense about extra explosives to simply make it look like col79 failed, we don't know what Gerry and Ziggi think initiated collapse let alone any other part of the WTC7 collapse sequence.
Then there are the towers and flight 93 and the Pentagon. Are they all inside jobby jobs? If so how were they done?
Why WTC7? I know I never heard of it prior to 9/11, it had no more importance than WTC3,4,5 or 6 and each of them were destroyed some suffering even more widespread fires ( as a percentage of floorspace) than #7.

Truthers think WTC7 is a 'smoking gun' put their entire premise concerning it begs more questions that they can answer than it could possibly answer by way of explaining its demise

The whole concept of an inside jobby jobby is so much insanity. Having done work in late 80'-early 90's in the WTC, Empire State Building, South Street Seaport, Manhattan Mall, among others.....the clandestine operation that troofers envision is impossible......especially in a country where two woman could not keep a stain blue dress a secret.

 

[Animal]

To look at the C79-44 girder and the beams framing into it in isolation has the value of attaining a realistic distance that the girder would need to travel in order to walk off.
For sure things have to be viewed in context of the whole structure, but as always the devil is in the detail. For example, do you think that the girder would expand enough at the given temp to become trapped on the inside of the side plate on the west face of the column?

And there is the evidences of your problem.......it is not detail.....it is DETAILS
you want to look at one thing at a time, when in fact, there were hundreds of moving parts.

 

[gerrycan]

In order to determine how much each element contributes all must be considered. You focus on one area, the NIST looked at 16 stories. Why run a costly FEA if it's as simple as you claim?

So, roughly what % of connections did NIST model damage in?

 

[DGM]

So, roughly what % of connections did NIST model damage in?

No idea? Why do you ask? Are you thinking they didn't model 16 stories worth (along with all the elements connected)?

 

[beachnut]

So, roughly what % of connections did NIST model damage in?

Where is your theory? All you do is ask questions, quote mine the answers, or comments, and fail to do more that attack NIST unarmed with engineering expertise.

State your theory, support it. Engineers do go attacking work, they present the correct solution, not some Quixotic BS vendetta against the man, in this case NIST is the obsession of 911 truth, prove NIST wrong and you can have - NIST wrong. It means your CD fantasy remains, a fantasy.

You lost before you started with your new approach, which amounts to talking people to death attacking work you don't understand - and avoiding your inability to prove CD.
http://911blogger.com/news/2014-03-07/being-smeared-911-truther-msm#comment-260973
It appears every 911 truth faith based follower is using your "new approach"; it does not fool skeptics, and it is ironic we are discussing it in "9/11 Conspiracy Theories" sub-forum - where we discuss crazy claims from 911 truth. Not a NIST sub-forum, but 911 truth crazy claims; like CD. You don't get it.

What is your theory, and how will you prove it?

 

[LSSBB]

Didn't answer my question. How does this connection relate when viewed with the whole 16 story model the NIST used to make it's determination. Are the thousands of other elements and their response unimportant? In order to determine how much each element contributes all must be considered. You focus on one area, the NIST looked at 16 stories. Why run a costly FEA if it's as simple as you claim?

Because that connection was hovering there, like an angel, since NIST wrote a sentence on it. Since NIST didn't write about many other connections and associated members, they all stood frozen somewhere. Therefore all you have to do is take a napkin, a calculator,a pencil, and apply a formula from a book, and voilà! You've proven an extensive computer analysis by the National Institute of Standards and Technology wrong! Or at least convince donors and potential cult inductees that you have.

Oh, and you found they were off, by an inch. Why does that not satisfy them, I wonder?

 

[gerrycan]

So, roughly what % of connections did NIST model damage in?

No idea? Why do you ask? Are you thinking they didn't model 16 stories worth (along with all the elements connected)?

They only modeled the east side.

 

[DGM]

So, roughly what % of connections did NIST model damage in?


They only modeled the east side.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=32711&stc=1&d=1426120999[/qimg]

and.............?

Still far more than you claim as "key" (orders of magnitude).

Do you really wonder why the engineering community has been ignoring you?