'What about building 7'?

[Animal]

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

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

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

FTFY

 

[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]

Does your analysis cover as many elements?

A simple yes or no will do. You can add your justifications if you want.

 

[beachnut]

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]

What did you model for your CD theory?

People who are either technically aware enough to see through the holes in the official account of 911,

There are big holes in your CD theory, better work on those holes first.

Do you have a list of the holes?

 

[ProBonoShill]

I think that this is a far better approach and it is to some extent keeping this exchange fuccused on the technical. I can understand why that has irked you.
And who you callin a liar?
It's rude and very ironic.

It's not a better approach it's a cowardly approach.

So let me get this straight.
You want to discuss the minutiae of a report created using a limited model, yet are too afraid to discuss even general details of your CD fantasy?

Really? That's your plan?
LOL!

I'm guessing the reason your posting on this 3rd party website is an attempt to convince members here or onlookers that 9/11 was an inside jobby job? Correct?

I mean why else would you be here.

Do you think all the posts you ignore, all the questions you dodge, all the quote mining and cherry picking are really helping your credibility?

I'm predicting you'll ignore this post, like you have several times in this thread and others. Just remember every time you do, it shows you're too afraid to discuss your 9/11 theory.

Trying to prove NIST's model (there's that word again) has some insignificant minor error and equating that to inside job is beyond laughable. Couple that with the fact you won't touch your moronic CD conclusion with a 10 foot pole and we can only surmise you're not very adept at discussing the entirety of events that occurred on 9/11. For some strange reason twoofers these days always seem to have trouble with this.

Let's discuss Shanksville.
Let's discuss the Pentagon.
Let's talk about WTC 1.
or WTC 2.

No No No No! But hey NIST was off half an inch on some minor detail in their limited model created for a building that wasn't even attacked: yeah awesome let's talk about that!!!!

No twoofer has ever put forth a coherent theory on the complete events of 9/11 and judging by your posts (and those of your buddy Ziggy) that won't be changing anytime soon.

Oh and just in case your wondering how successful the truther brigade has been in the past with regards to convincing the lurkers, this might help.

 

[pgimeno]

"New investigation" in 5... 4... 3...

The only proper response to the obvious lack of credibility of the initiation hypothesis in the NIST WTC 7 report would be to have a new analysis and investigation done.

My, that was slower than I expected. Truthers need to improve their reflexes.

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

The technical detail surrounding the initiating event is being focused on and discussed.

...that reminds me, you didn't get back to Oystein or Reactor drone about the top and bottom/z axis thingy

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

It's not a better approach it's a cowardly approach.

So let me get this straight.
You want to discuss the minutiae of a report created using a limited model, yet are too afraid to discuss even general details of your CD fantasy?

Really? That's your plan?
LOL!

I'm guessing the reason your posting on this 3rd party website is an attempt to convince members here or onlookers that 9/11 was an inside jobby job? Correct?

I mean why else would you be here.

Do you think all the posts you ignore, all the questions you dodge, all the quote mining and cherry picking are really helping your credibility?

I'm predicting you'll ignore this post, like you have several times in this thread and others. Just remember every time you do, it shows you're too afraid to discuss your 9/11 theory.

Trying to prove NIST's model (there's that word again) has some insignificant minor error and equating that to inside job is beyond laughable. Couple that with the fact you won't touch your moronic CD conclusion with a 10 foot pole and we can only surmise you're not very adept at discussing the entirety of events that occurred on 9/11. For some strange reason twoofers these days always seem to have trouble with this.

Let's discuss Shanksville.
Let's discuss the Pentagon.
Let's talk about WTC 1.
or WTC 2.

No No No No! But hey NIST was off half an inch on some minor detail in their limited model created for a building that wasn't even attacked: yeah awesome let's talk about that!!!!

No twoofer has ever put forth a coherent theory on the complete events of 9/11 and judging by your posts (and those of your buddy Ziggy) that won't be changing anytime soon.

Oh and just in case your wondering how successful the truther brigade has been in the past with regards to convincing the lurkers, this might help.

He doesn't need a theory, he has a gameplan.

I think it works something like this:

 

[Oystein]

I had a couple of posts with questions for gerrycan that he ignored. I'd really like a reply to the first one, as his credibility is at stake, so please, gerrycan, hop back to that post on page 111 and explain to me why you fed me false information about the chapter 11 model, because if you don't, I will conclude that you did so, and probably will continue to do so, for deliberate and nefarious purposes:

Seriously? Did you hope I would not open the report and read for myself??



Seriously??? You really can't read, can you? Here, let me read out p484 NCSTAR 1-9 for ya:

"Displacement Boundary Conditions

The column nodes at the base of the 16 story model were fully fixed to model the rigidity of the grillage and foundation (Chapter 2). The top of the columns at Floor 16 were fixed in the global x- and ydirections, to prevent lateral displacements, and were free in the global z-direction, to allow vertical displacement of the columns in response to gravity loads and thermal expansion. The purpose of the ANSYS model was to simulate the accumulation of local damages and failures up to the initiation of overall global collapse due to fire. The building was not expected to displace significantly in the x- and y-directions outside of the floors with no fire and there was no interaction between adjacent columns for relatively small motions in the z-direction, due to limited load re-distribution mechanisms."​

No other Displacement Boundary Conditions are mentioned, and since they explicitly state those for the bottom and the top of the 16-story assembly, I am sure you will agree with what I implied initially: the 16-story FEA model DOES reflect the deformations and displacements in all directions that reality necessarily must have seen - on all floors except the very top and the very bottom. It would help your credibility to admit that the model does indeed reflect movement of all nodes on all the relevant floors (5-13 at least) in all spatial directions. If you go on denying or ignoring this FACT, this would serve to further undermine your credibility.

As for the second unanswered post, I can understand if you want to maintain secrecy and continue to conspire clandestinely:

I have asked a short while ago, but didn't see an answer - sorry if I missed it:
Are you involved in the FEA project announced by AE911Truth as part of their "ambitious agenda for 2015"? If so, in what capacity? If not, do you know who is leading this effort, who is participating?

I should add one more question: Is AE911Truth paying for this project out of donations?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

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

You are putting words in my mouth. I have never said I thought column 79 was the initiating event in the collapse of WTC 7, with or without extra explosives.

I have said it appears to have been removed only high in the building to take the east penthouse down. My reasons for that are that daylight is only visible in the top story windows afterward, there is a shock wave from top down which only breaks windows from top down for about fifteen stories, there is no white dust emanating from windows on the east side until the entire exterior comes down, and there is no exterior deformation during the time that NIST alleges the full east side interior is collapsing.

I have also said (on this forum and other places) many times that I believe eight stories of core columns were removed somewhere low in the building to cause the collapse. I also don't see a need to artificially remove exterior columns, as they would be left unsupported and pulled in by the falling core. This is what Danny Jowenko thought also.

 

[Oystein]

...
I also don't see a need to artificially remove exterior columns, as they would be left unsupported and pulled in by the falling core. This is what Danny Jowenko thought also.

This is interesting - this seems to agree with all those who say that the "about g" acceleration of the north wall did not require cutting all structural resistance, particularly of external walls, as David Chandler and followers seem to claim (I am not exactly sure what Chandlers detailed claim here is)

Can you clarify, please?

 

[JSanderO]

You are putting words in my mouth. I have never said I thought column 79 was the initiating event in the collapse of WTC 7, with or without extra explosives.

I have said it appears to have been removed only high in the building to take the east penthouse down. My reasons for that are that daylight is only visible in the top story windows afterward, there is a shock wave from top down which only breaks windows from top down for about fifteen stories, there is no white dust emanating from windows on the east side until the entire exterior comes down, and there is no exterior deformation during the time that NIST alleges the full east side interior is collapsing.

I have also said (on this forum and other places) many times that I believe eight stories of core columns were removed somewhere low in the building to cause the collapse. I also don't see a need to artificially remove exterior columns, as they would be left unsupported and pulled in by the falling core. This is what Danny Jowenko thought also.

There were 81 column lines from floor 8 to the roof and definitely few below that were the load transfer structures were required because of the Con Ed facility. The east and west perimeter below 8 were braced framed with onlyu a few vertical columns.

To remove 81 columns... as you assert over 8 floors would mean that the CD had to begin on floor 8 extending up to floor 15 for example.

What would that actually look like... the "removed/CDed" columns? We they all blasted so as to destroyed axial alignment?

Why would they bother to cause the EPH to drop? It seems to make no sense in your suggested CD scenario.

YES the core area did collapse first...floor areas outside the core would be pulled down into the center and finally the perimeter moment frame would drop...with the braced frames gone and no axial support on on the north side which was atop the end of cantilevers.

You only have to achieve mis alignment or destruction of a threshold amount of axial support in the core on a single floor for the (core) entire area above it to drop with little to no resistance aside from floor sections held briefly by the perimeter moment frame..

 

[GlennB]

Why would they bother to cause the EPH to drop? It seems to make no sense in your suggested CD scenario.

He was pushed on this question once before and the best he could come up with was to say it was to prevent the EMP from toppling off sideways. He never did explain why it might do that or why anyone would care.

 

[jaydeehess]

You are putting words in my mouth. I have never said I thought column 79 was the initiating event in the collapse of WTC 7, with or without extra explosives.

I certainly did not put those words in your mouth or in my post. Don't know what you are on about there TSz . I was saying you want more explosives up high on col 79 which would make it look like col 79 failed.

I have said it appears to have been removed only high in the building to take the east penthouse down. My reasons for that are that daylight is only visible in the top story windows afterward, there is a shock wave from top down which only breaks windows from top down for about fifteen stories, there is no white dust emanating from windows on the east side until the entire exterior comes down, and there is no exterior deformation during the time that NIST alleges the full east side interior is collapsing.

So I am correct col 79 is destroyed high up, according to you, and only looks like it failed low down. This destruction of col 79 is accomplished for some convoluted and ridiculous reason.
Of course then there is the "kink" which runs from roof to lowest point visible, directly north of col 79, causing all levels to tilt at that line

I have also said (on this forum and other places) many times that I believe eight stories of core columns were removed somewhere low in the building to cause the collapse. I also don't see a need to artificially remove exterior columns, as they would be left unsupported and pulled in by the falling core. This is what Danny Jowenko thought also.

Like I said,Chandler under the bus.
Will AE911T ever have a scenario that doesn't change drastically from time to time? I thought demolition was supposedly obvious but it keeps changing.

 

[jaydeehess]

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]

Interesting! You opine that inclusion of south west area perimeter damage may have contributed to initiation of collapse. Indeed NIST found that it affected progression of collapse , in the full structure FEA. You !might be correct, I could envision SW corner damage pulling the lower structure out of line and contributing to collapse initiation.

 

[jaydeehess]

Duplicate

 

[jaydeehess]

He was pushed on this question once before and the best he could come up with was to say it was to prevent the EMP from toppling off sideways. He never did explain why it might do that or why anyone would care.

EMP?? You mean EPH?
If so, well of course the penthouse structure toppling off to the north might have Impacted another building and we know how concerned the supposed perpetrators of this gigantic conspiracy were concerned about collateral damage. Even if a church and several other nonWTC complex buildings get destroyed , you know, at some point enough is enough. Even evil conspirators have a limit.

 

[GlennB]

EMP?? You mean EPH?
If so, well of course the penthouse structure toppling off to the north might have Impacted another building and we know how concerned the supposed perpetrators of this gigantic conspiracy were concerned about collateral damage. Even if a church and several other nonWTC complex buildings get destroyed , you know, at some point enough is enough. Even evil conspirators have a limit.

Maybe somebody with an eye for tidiness planned that part

p.s. I've calling it the EMP for years (East Mechanical Penthouse), thought it was normal.

 

[jaydeehess]

Maybe somebody with an eye for tidiness planned that part

p.s. I've calling it the EMP for years (East Mechanical Penthouse), thought it was normal.

My bad, I could not get past ElectroMagnetic Pulse which just didn't fit.

 

[GlennB]

p.s. Here's the original:

"I will say that I believe the asymmetrically located east penthouse was pulled down inside the building so it wouldn't fly off or topple, with column 79 taken out up high only. The window damage you point out is only high in the building and supports this."

 

[carlitos]

p.s. Here's the original:

"I will say that I believe the asymmetrically located east penthouse was pulled down inside the building so it wouldn't fly off or topple, with column 79 taken out up high only. The window damage you point out is only high in the building and supports this."

Oh, God, that is embarrassing to read.