'What about building 7'?

[Belz...]

NISTs collapse initiating event has been invalidated.

According to whom?

Do you think that the column 38 connection with K3004 would fail?

Ah, so according to YOU.

 

[Belz...]

Okay. You just needed to say that you had not looked at the connection.
I doubt the credentials that you are so fond of citing when appealing to your own authority.
Have you looked at the C38 connection Jay?

Do you really think that anyone here is fooled by that trick you just pulled ? Does that work on the people you normally argue with ?

 

[Ziggi]

So, you tell them things like "'more than one thing at a time moves in a finite element model' is not a legitimate counter point to 'one beam didn't expand enough to cause a failure all by itself'" and that makes them believe you and trust you more?].

No, the thermal expansion of the floor beams caused the displacement of the girder to the west according to NIST. If you would want to make "a legitimate counter point" about other structural elements you would have to cite the report where it says that happened, but you cannot do that, and neither could your buddies.

There is a very big difference between NIST saying something in its report and some anonymous person on a disgraced internet forum making up a story about NIST saying something in the report.

If you had been able to follow the discussion you would have understood that by now. But you can´t.

Keep up the good work

 

[JayUtah]

There is a very big difference between NIST saying something in its report and some anonymous person on a disgraced internet forum making up a story about NIST saying something in the report.

Agreed. Therefore I have to ask why, if your gripe is with NIST, and you have such a strong case, you aren't talking to NIST or some other professional engineering organization. Why instead are you resorting to "disgraced internet forums" and trying to get them to agree to defend NIST for your benefit?

 

[Mark F]

Agreed. Therefore I have to ask why, if your gripe is with NIST, and you have such a strong case, you aren't talking to NIST or some other professional engineering organization. Why instead are you resorting to "disgraced internet forums" and trying to get them to agree to defend NIST for your benefit?

Or why even bother at all.

NIST presented a probable collapse scenario based on models created using th e limited available information on 7 WTC's internal condition. NIST did the best they could with what they had and came up with a scenario that is plausible. Is it the only plausible scenario? No.

Whether or not NIST's probable collapse scenario is right or wrong makes no difference. What happened happened. Even if NIST's model is not exactly what happened 7 WTC still collapsed due to fire. So all this NIST-picking is really just a colossal waste of energy.

 

[ozeco41]

You are trying to dis people like Tony who are experienced engineers for making calculations that contradict NIST...

Two points relevant there:
1) Tony is wrong on the engineering and has been shown exactly where his errors are. Many times. Multiple times on THIS forum.
2) Whether or not he disagrees with NIST is a red herring. The NIST findings did not define what happened on 9/11 2001. 9/11 happened on 9/11 and was written in history on that date. What NIST wrote years later cannot rewrite history. Whether right or wrong.

No one else posting here is an experienced engineer?

As most members here know I am an experienced engineer and experienced manager of engineers who go off the rails with false reasoning. I have shown Tony where he is wrong on all of his main published theses EXCEPT one. That is not dissing Tony. It is definitely dissing his false engineering claims where they are WRONG.

He was wrong back in 2007 when I identified his error in my first ever post on an internet forum:

The paper referenced as Engineering Reality by Tony Szamboti is typical of many which look impressive in detail to the non-engineer. The complex calculations may even be correct but the base premises are faulty and the resulting conclusions can readily be demonstrated to be totally wrong.

He was also wrong with the base premises for "Missing Jolt", and, yet again, he has not got the base premises right for WTC7 girder walk-off. (Despite the reality that a lot of debunkers have ignored the false premises and have argued within the false context set by Tony.)

AFAIK the only published paper he got partly right was in the more recent "Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis" where he was a co-author with Gregory Szuladzinski and Richard Johns. The irony there being that the Sz, Sz and J paper rebuts the false premises T Sz relied on for "Missing Jolt". Think of shooting and foot...

So we are - or at least I am - "dissing" the nonsense of his engineering. Have done many times over several recent years. Where it is wrong.

Whether or not NIST's probable collapse scenario is right or wrong makes no difference. What happened happened.

Exactly. The implicit truther position that what NIST claims changes history is stupid. Just think - if the truther logic was valid all we need do is get NIST to write a report "9/11 Never Happened" and Hey presto!...all is restored.

BUT that error of false premises is not the only big error in all this detailed NIT (NIST??) picking.

The full claims - Szamboti, AE911, Pepper letter and the et als currently tag teaming with Tony - says "If the NIST detail of girder walk-off is wrong the whole NIST explanation is falsified.

Hogwash and one of the standard truther false generalisations - false global claims. IF NIST is wrong on the girder the reality of EPH falling still means Col79 must have failed and there is still no pro CD hypothesis.

So what - 90% - of the NIST explanation still stands even IF the girder bit is wrong. The detail is not significant. <<And that is another failure of the T Sz, AE911 et al claim. They have not shown the detail to be significant NOR to have significant effect if it is wrong.

I'm sure somebody will correct me if I'm wrong but AFAICS there are only three plausible ways for Col 79 to fail:
1) Removal of multiple braces allowing the column to buckle under existing loads;
2) Addition of more weight on top to grossly overload with the braces still in place. (I haven't seen any evidence of the importation of masses of concrete blocks or pig iron ingots onto the roof) OR
3) CD for which there is no prima facie claim.

Even if NIST's model is not exactly what happened 7 WTC still collapsed due to fire. So all this NIST-picking is really just a colossal waste of energy.

AGREED.

It is a tactical red herring to keep the discussion circling in details and a mix of personal snide comments. Thereby avoiding any of the "bigger picture" errors that the follows of T Sz persist in maintaining.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony who once claimed that WTC1+2, standing there happily for years, had been accelerating at g for all that time?

What do you think causes weight? The reality is all objects on the face of the earth are all being accelerated towards the center of the earth, but when an equal force reaction is applied it keeps it from having any movement.

In the equation for weight

Weight = mass x gravity

the term "gravity" stands for gravitational acceleration. When the reaction is removed the acceleration generates velocity. If you walk over a hidden hole covered with light hay on it you will fall downward and gain velocity, while beforehand you would have been on solid ground with a reaction force equal to your weight and thus no velocity was generated. However, an acceleration was being applied to your mass both before and after you stepped into the hole.

Tony who believes the WTC7 EMP was CD'd in advance to "stop it flying off the side"?

The evidence is there for the east penthouse being a distinct and separate event.

- There was no exterior deformation on the east side when the east side interior is alleged to have been collapsing.
- There is no white dust emanating from the east side until the full exterior comes down.
- There is daylight visible only through the top story windows on the east side after the penthouse comes down.
- There are only broken windows about 15 floors down, and the shock wave goes top to bottom.

These observations are all consistent with the east penthouse only being brought down by a failure high in the building.

Tony who thinks there was no extremely hot material in the N side of WTC1 that might have set fires when it hit WTC7?

You can't show any basis for how hot material would have been on the north side of the WTC 1 and the photograph of Edna Citron standing in the hole gives you real problems. There are also serious problems for your point of view due to WTC 7 being 350 feet away. I have shown photographs here in the past which showed the debris falling no more than 80 feet from the building from up high.

You really look to such a person as an authority on engineering? Really?

Do you really think they would look to people with pseudonyms and unsound arguments like you?

 

[Ziggi]

Agreed. Therefore I have to ask why, if your gripe is with NIST, and you have such a strong case, you aren't talking to NIST or some other professional engineering organization. Why instead are you resorting to "disgraced internet forums" and trying to get them to agree to defend NIST for your benefit?

I already explained why I post here, in my first post and again in another post a couple of hours ago.

AE11Truth and associates do engage NIST and relevant organizations, worldwide, both via comments/letters/papers from engineers and now via a lawyer. And AE911 has for example routinly collected new petition signatories at AIA conventions, which is quite an accomplishment given the political situation and stigma.

NIST has already corrected errors in its report due to these efforts. The admition of free fall acceleration and omitted stiffener plates are two examples. It is now seen where this would eventually lead and is refusing to make further corrections and revisions.

We would not bother with internet forums such as this one if the media and academia were doing their jobs. This has been necessary to spread the word. A dirty job but some had to do it.

Things are changing now. While we have been getting more and more high profile support from big names in science and politics, this forum got kicked out of JREF, and no scientist is willing to speak on your behalf in public.

But you got Reverend Chris Mohr speaking out for you, so everything is OK

 

[DGM]

NIST has already corrected errors in its report due to these efforts. The admition of free fall acceleration and omitted stiffener plates are two examples. It is now seen where this would eventually lead and is refusing to make further corrections and revisions.

Does this mean you're finally going to tell the Europeans? When can we expect this to happen?

 

[DGM]

Things are changing now. While we have been getting more and more high profile support from big names in science and politics,

Evidence?

 

[Ziggi]

Two points relevant there:
1) Tony is wrong on the engineering and has been shown exactly where his errors are. Many times. Multiple times on THIS forum.
2) Whether or not he disagrees with NIST is a red herring. The NIST findings did not define what happened on 9/11 2001. 9/11 happened on 9/11 and was written in history on that date. What NIST wrote years later cannot rewrite history. Whether right or wrong.

...The full claims - Szamboti, AE911, Pepper letter and the et als currently tag teaming with Tony - says "If the NIST detail of girder walk-off is wrong the whole NIST explanation is falsified.

Hogwash and one of the standard truther false generalisations - false global claims. IF NIST is wrong on the girder the reality of EPH falling still means Col79 must have failed and there is still no pro CD hypothesis..

You are free to imagine that you have shown Tony to be wrong, and to showoff your grandiose view of yourself.

NISTs walk off story is BS and so is its story about column 79 failure leading to a symmetric global collapse, which is based on the same kind BS that lead to the walk off story. And NIST is preventing independend scrutiny of its computer model because it knows as much.

For someone who claims to be an experienced engineer, you display an awful ignorance of the repercussions of making false reports in the world of science.

There is nothing wrong with putting out a report that turns out to be wrong, as long as the data was correctly presented and no foul play involved, but if you put out a report that is false because you fudged numbers you lose your licence and your career. And in some cases this sort of thing can lead to lawsuits and jail time. In case of a report by NIST for its political masters, both options are on the table, plus a massive scandal that could really shake things up.

 

[cantonear1968]

Or why even bother at all.

NIST presented a probable collapse scenario based on models created using th e limited available information on 7 WTC's internal condition. NIST did the best they could with what they had and came up with a scenario that is plausible. Is it the only plausible scenario? No.

Whether or not NIST's probable collapse scenario is right or wrong makes no difference. What happened happened. Even if NIST's model is not exactly what happened 7 WTC still collapsed due to fire. So all this NIST-picking is really just a colossal waste of energy.

I was going to simplify Markf's excellent post, but I was surprised to see Ozeco and he not do so since he has been the one to beat this drum numerous times:

Proving NIST wrong does not prove CD.

There is still Zero evidence of explosive or incendiary devices.

Tony Z et al are reduced to arguing which bolt failed first, which does nothing to bolster their and AE911T's hopes for further fund raising a New Investigation.

 

[Myriad]

There is a very big difference between NIST saying something in its report and some anonymous person on a disgraced internet forum making up a story about NIST saying something in the report.

Is that anonymous person you? Or me? Or someone else?

I seem to recall NIST definitely saying in its report that it had conducted an extensive FEA study of collapse initiation in Building 7. Of course, it's been years since I read it. Have you or the people you claim agree with you done a superior study since then? There's certainly been enough time.

If you had been able to follow the discussion you would have understood that by now. But you can´t.

Keep up the good work

I check in to such threads as this one about once or twice a year (not counting addressing moderation issues, which are also infrequent).

So far, that's been more than sufficient to follow and keep up with the "progress" of the Truth Movement in achieving any of its claimed objectives and promoting any of its claimed narratives.

What does that tell you?

What changes, accomplishments, or progress should I expect to see if I return six months from now?

 

[Ziggi]

Evidence?

Dwain Deets was a NASA director for 30 years or so for example. There are several AIA Fellows, etc.

As for politics, William Binney former NSA director recently signed the AE petition. Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is a highest level GOP member and a veteran White House insider, yet he made public last year the following statement:

Watching the twin towers and WTC 7 come down, it was obvious to me that the buildings were not falling down as a result of structural damage. When it became clear that the White House had blocked an independent investigation of the only three steel skyscrapers in world history to collapse as a result of low temperature office fires, it was apparent that there was a coverup.

If only you had the same propensity to ask NIST for evidence

 

[LSSBB]

Dwain Deets was a NASA director for 30 years or so for example. There are several AIA Fellows, etc.

As for politics, William Binney former NSA director recently signed the AE petition. Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is a highest level GOP member and a veteran White House insider, yet he made public last year the following statement:



If only you had the same propensity to ask NIST for evidence

Wow, you'd think if they were that high up they'd be able to produce some real evidence of a CD. They must be just blowing smoke then.

 

[DGM]

Dwain Deets was a NASA director for 30 years or so for example. There are several AIA Fellows, etc.

As for politics, William Binney former NSA director recently signed the AE petition. Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is a highest level GOP member and a veteran White House insider, yet he made public last year the following statement:



If only you had the same propensity to ask NIST for evidence

That's it?

I don't need to ask the NIST for evidence, I can (have) read the reports.

Do you plan to do something at some point in time?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

You are free to imagine that you have shown Tony to be wrong

It's demonstrated reality. Some of your own errors replicate his just by nature of some of your claims being auto-falsified due to contradicting, documented video and photographic evidence. As I and others have explained ad nauseum in some form or another, proving the NIST wrong doesn't prove "CD", and one top reasons for that is because the evidence for "CD" does not exist, and the claims that Tony and by and large the remainder of the CT's makes shows an incapacity to understand the technical merits of the things they discuss.

 

[NoahFence]

Ziggy, Tony, mm, all you people.
Don't you understand that the only way to get anyone that matters to listen to you is to account for the whole day?

Unless you do that, you'll be viewed as insignificant crackpots. You've had all this time!
What the hell?

 

[Ziggi]

Is that anonymous person you? Or me? Or someone else?

WOW, you are confused. Really? So when you referred to some people making a legit counter point..

"'more than one thing at a time moves in a finite element model' is not a legitimate counter point to 'one beam didn't expand enough to cause a failure all by itself'"

... you were not citing any people you know, your buddies on this forum for example, and you knew of no-one making that claim?

Did you exclude most of the context in my post on purpose to confuse yourself? Try reading it again, uncut, and if you are still confused, let me know

No, the thermal expansion of the floor beams caused the displacement of the girder to the west according to NIST. If you would want to make "a legitimate counter point" about other structural elements you would have to cite the report where it says that happened, but you cannot do that, and neither could your buddies.

There is a very big difference between NIST saying something in its report and some anonymous person on a disgraced internet forum making up a story about NIST saying something in the report.

If you had been able to follow the discussion you would have understood that by now. But you can´t.

 

[DGM]

There is a very big difference between NIST saying something in its report and some anonymous person on a disgraced internet forum making up a story about NIST saying something in the report.

Disgraced to whom? Would that be your fringe group of followers? Your credibility is marked how?