'What about building 7'?

[JSanderO]

I too find the NIST column 79 scenario as the cause of the collapse a problem. It was an early failure for sure. My own study showed that the structure was very unique with an extensive load transfer structure supporting the floors about 7. This had to have failed early on. I think it led the collapse not a consequence of col 79 at 13. But I don't see any evidence for CD and the notion that people went in there to take it down and blame it on the terrorists makes no sense. Or less so that it was prepared months in advance to be blown at 5:20 8 hrs after the attack.

I find the obsession with minute details absurd... there are not enough data inputs to know what happened and so it's really theoretical. I think engineers learned lessons about these design concepts, fire protection, egress and so on... whether they were formalized in codes or not. I think the designs were innovative but lacking the sort of redundancy to deal with what they had to on 9/11. I find the truth movement is a distraction because terrorism is a real problem despite problems with the MIC and the CIA and so on. Plenty of political problems to solve and the false flag idea is incredibly naive and loony in this case. We got blow back and we were unprepared for it.

 

[DGM]

The alternative as far as you are concerned is that NIST are wrong.

.............meaning?

How does this lack of alternative not concern you?

 

[BasqueArch]

It was not explosives, unless you know of a silent blast-free explosive. And no thermite was used on 911. That only leaves fire.
Gage lied, it was not thermite, explosives and CD.

it is not an open mind issue, it is a fact based event; only fire was present. Playing the open mind card when you believe in fantasy. Where did you get the silent explosives from in the CD fantasy?

Of course there is no evidence of explosives and there is also evidence of no explosives. As shown by NIST the beams and girder expanded, sheared the 4 construction bolts on the girder and the beams sagged, twisting the girder, walking it off. It's pretty basic even at low temperatures. They could have checked for failure of the girder seat as a hot seat with a displaced buckled girder seated on the tip would have bent it and fallen off.

 

[LSSBB]

I don't get this. Either there are witnesses to the gas chambers that can be named, then name them; or there aren't, then say "there aren't". The overall conclusion about the reality of gas chambers, I am certain, does not stand or fall with this one question, and someone as knowledgeable, intelligent and well-spoken as Nick Terry can argue it even while admitting a minor gap in the picture.

I fear that you are actually giving the deniers a big win when you dance around a reality. It makes you look like you are the denier!

The problem is establishing what the aspect of reality is, that is in question. It's then not an issue of you not answering their question, it's their refusal to address the premise of the question, and thus allow themselves to cherry pick the answer they want.

Politicians do this all the time. They don't answer the question you ask, they answer the question they want to answer.

 

[gerrycan]

.............meaning?

How does this lack of alternative not concern you?

Meaning that you currently believe them to be correct.
As for the lack of an alternative I truly think that at this stage the 2 options on the table are that NIST are correct or they are incorrect. I believe the latter to be the case and you believe the former. You're not about to jump to an alternative until the former is proven to be invalid. One step at a time.

 

[TJM]

Only people who can't face the truth, or wish to suppress it, have cause to doggedly block any consideration that the official NIST investigation into the cause of 7WTC's collapse was a failure.

As I have repeatedly said, proof that the demolition of 7WTC was not an inside job can only be good news to those that see it otherwise.

There is no sane motivation to desire a belief in bad News.

Good News is always easy to embrace.

It is the people who believe 7WTC's demolition occurred the way they have been told by the NIST who cannot stand the pain of being wrong.

Bad News denied, is a horrible pill to swallow.

 

[DGM]

Meaning that you currently believe them to be correct.
As for the lack of an alternative I truly think that at this stage the 2 options on the table are that NIST are correct or they are incorrect. I believe the latter to be the case and you believe the former. You're not about to jump to an alternative until the former is proven to be invalid. One step at a time.

What is the hypothesis that you support (outside of the NIST got it wrong)?

 

[Sabretooth]

The draft report on WTC7 was released in 2008.

You are having trouble grasping a simple comment and explanation. Color me shocked.

As far as the errors in the connection details that I am talking about, my group were only in possession of the structural drawings for a few weeks by the time that we picked up the errors that NIST made. We alerted NIST to these and they admitted a few of them but failed to address the implications of those errors. It took NIST 8 years to publish a report that had schoolboy errors in it. It took my group less than a month to pick up these errors.

Um, so?
Show me where any "errors" prove something nefarious?

So at the point where we released our information with regard to NISTs errors in the WTC7 report, it would have been fair to say that we "hadn't been at this very long". You're kind of late with that claim though. Try to keep up.

I have a feeling I've been at this longer than you. You're peddling the same nonsense that dozens before you have been dumping here for years. You suggest I try to keep up, but with your rehashed garbage, I'm just trying to stay awake...

 

[slowsmile]

Meaning that you currently believe them to be correct.
As for the lack of an alternative I truly think that at this stage the 2 options on the table are that NIST are correct or they are incorrect. I believe the latter to be the case and you believe the former. You're not about to jump to an alternative until the former is proven to be invalid. One step at a time.

Investigations / project management doesn't work like that in the real world. Lots of different angles are explored in parallel.

So your evidence for CD is.............................

 

[Animal]

Show me where any "errors" prove something nefarious?

If there was something nefarious going on at the NIST.....they would not have added non existent elements making the collapse scenario more difficult. Something troofers have never been able to come to grips with.

 

[gerrycan]

What is the hypothesis that you support (outside of the NIST got it wrong)?

I don't pretend to have all the answers and it is no doubt easier to invalidate a given hypothesis than to formulate an alternative. Initially when I looked, with others at the drawings for 7 the first thing to do was to check what NIST said against the drawings and see if they accurately reflected each other. This was clearly not the case with particular respect to the very connection that NIST homed in on at C79. Straight away, that set alarm bells ringing. ie If NIST can make such glaring errors at the connections they were putting under most scrutiny, then that does not bode well for the rest of their analysis.
NIST did admit some of these errors but failed to account for the difference that these errors could make to their analysis. The right thing for them to do would have been to redo the analysis at that point but they did not.
Given adequate resources, I would like to replicate the observed collapse in a model by removing connections at a given number of columns until the result mirrored the observations of the collapse in reality. At that point we would then know the extent to which the fire would have to attack the building structurally in order to reproduce the observed collapse.
My gut feeling, based on what I have seen in the drawings is that there is just no way for an organic process such as fire is, to reproduce the effects that we see, but having not exhausted the alternative fire scenarios I am hesitant to hang my hat on the CD peg.
I prefer to keep an open mind as to what actually caused this and that means that controlled demolition cannot be ruled out as a cause at this point. Yes, it would be difficult to do on the day, and it would be a major undertaking and there are questions for sure about why anybody who had this intention would not just let the building burn out, but that alone does not invalidate the hypothesis that CD is a possibility. After all, anybody who believes the official account that we are offered already believes that something that we have formerly believed to be impossible occurred to result in the buildings demise.
In those circumstances it would be foolish to believe that which is less possible, over that which is less probable.
The alternative to NISTs explanation that fire did it is controlled demolition, and NIST have yet to prove that their theory holds water. That in itself does not mean that fire couldn't have done it, but it does mean that it would be foolish not to consider the alternative cause to be controlled demolition.
For the record, I would also like to state that CD is a far less comfortable possibility for me personally to entertain than NISTs "fire did it" theory.
To imagine that potentially any steel high rise could be prone to collapse due to fire actually scares me more than the thought that we haven't been told the truth about what happened to this building.

 

[slowsmile]

I don't pretend to have all the answers and it is no doubt easier to invalidate a given hypothesis than to formulate an alternative. Initially when I looked, with others at the drawings for 7 the first thing to do was to check what NIST said against the drawings and see if they accurately reflected each other. This was clearly not the case with particular respect to the very connection that NIST homed in on at C79. Straight away, that set alarm bells ringing. ie If NIST can make such glaring errors at the connections they were putting under most scrutiny, then that does not bode well for the rest of their analysis.
NIST did admit some of these errors but failed to account for the difference that these errors could make to their analysis. The right thing for them to do would have been to redo the analysis at that point but they did not.
Given adequate resources, I would like to replicate the observed collapse in a model by removing connections at a given number of columns until the result mirrored the observations of the collapse in reality. At that point we would then know the extent to which the fire would have to attack the building structurally in order to reproduce the observed collapse.
My gut feeling, based on what I have seen in the drawings is that there is just no way for an organic process such as fire is, to reproduce the effects that we see, but having not exhausted the alternative fire scenarios I am hesitant to hang my hat on the CD peg.
I prefer to keep an open mind as to what actually caused this and that means that controlled demolition cannot be ruled out as a cause at this point. Yes, it would be difficult to do on the day, and it would be a major undertaking and there are questions for sure about why anybody who had this intention would not just let the building burn out, but that alone does not invalidate the hypothesis that CD is a possibility. After all, anybody who believes the official account that we are offered already believes that something that we have formerly believed to be impossible occurred to result in the buildings demise.
In those circumstances it would be foolish to believe that which is less possible, over that which is less probable.
The alternative to NISTs explanation that fire did it is controlled demolition, and NIST have yet to prove that their theory holds water. That in itself does not mean that fire couldn't have done it, but it does mean that it would be foolish not to consider the alternative cause to be controlled demolition.
For the record, I would also like to state that CD is a far less comfortable possibility for me personally to entertain than NISTs "fire did it" theory.
To imagine that potentially any steel high rise could be prone to collapse due to fire actually scares me more than the thought that we haven't been told the truth about what happened to this building.

So you're not going to offer any evidence for CD I take it.

 

[gerrycan]

If there was something nefarious going on at the NIST.....they would not have added non existent elements making the collapse scenario more difficult. Something troofers have never been able to come to grips with.

Was the East face of WTC7 infinitely strong?

 

[LSSBB]

If there was something nefarious going on at the NIST.....they would not have added non existent elements making the collapse scenario more difficult. Something troofers have never been able to come to grips with.

That's from continuously operating from the premise that NIST was trying to find whether the building would collapse or not given the conditions. As they ruled out explosives, the purpose of the engineering work and simulations was to indicate a likely failure path, which they did. That's why CTBUH (and JSanderO, and others) could differ with NIST on the precise failure path, and still agree on the fire and maybe damage as an origin.

Gerrycan's quibble with NIST is precisely a quibble and a diversion.

 

[gerrycan]

That's from continuously operating from the premise that NIST was trying to find whether the building would collapse or not given the conditions. As they ruled out explosives, the purpose of the engineering work and simulations was to indicate a likely failure path, which they did. That's why CTBUH (and JSanderO, and others) could differ with NIST on the precise failure path, and still agree on the fire and maybe damage as an origin.

Gerrycan's quibble with NIST is precisely a quibble and a diversion.

When the CTBUH asked NIST if stiffener plates on the girder would have prevented the failure publicly, do you think that it was right for NIST not to reply, when they were in possession of drawings that clearly showed the plates to be present?
I don't.

 

[Animal]

I don't pretend to have all the answers and it is no doubt easier to invalidate a given hypothesis than to formulate an alternative. Initially when I looked, with others at the drawings for 7 the first thing to do was to check what NIST said against the drawings and see if they accurately reflected each other. This was clearly not the case with particular respect to the very connection that NIST homed in on at C79. Straight away, that set alarm bells ringing. ie If NIST can make such glaring errors at the connections they were putting under most scrutiny, then that does not bode well for the rest of their analysis.
NIST did admit some of these errors but failed to account for the difference that these errors could make to their analysis. The right thing for them to do would have been to redo the analysis at that point but they did not.
Given adequate resources, I would like to replicate the observed collapse in a model by removing connections at a given number of columns until the result mirrored the observations of the collapse in reality. At that point we would then know the extent to which the fire would have to attack the building structurally in order to reproduce the observed collapse.
My gut feeling, based on what I have seen in the drawings is that there is just no way for an organic process such as fire is, to reproduce the effects that we see, but having not exhausted the alternative fire scenarios I am hesitant to hang my hat on the CD peg.
I prefer to keep an open mind as to what actually caused this and that means that controlled demolition cannot be ruled out as a cause at this point. Yes, it would be difficult to do on the day, and it would be a major undertaking and there are questions for sure about why anybody who had this intention would not just let the building burn out, but that alone does not invalidate the hypothesis that CD is a possibility. After all, anybody who believes the official account that we are offered already believes that something that we have formerly believed to be impossible occurred to result in the buildings demise.
In those circumstances it would be foolish to believe that which is less possible, over that which is less probable.
The alternative to NISTs explanation that fire did it is controlled demolition, and NIST have yet to prove that their theory holds water. That in itself does not mean that fire couldn't have done it, but it does mean that it would be foolish not to consider the alternative cause to be controlled demolition.
For the record, I would also like to state that CD is a far less comfortable possibility for me personally to entertain than NISTs "fire did it" theory.
To imagine that potentially any steel high rise could be prone to collapse due to fire actually scares me more than the thought that we haven't been told the truth about what happened to this building.

So basically you are saying that your ignorance of building structural design and structural modeling, as well as fire dynamics modelling, leads you to reject the overwhelming number of experts in their specific fields, and accept as possible something that has been ruled out as impossible by multiple factors......because your "gut feeling" tells you that.

BTW......if you really knew ANYTHING about building structures, you would know that all steel buildings are very susceptible to fire damage and why the building code limits the size and height of structures unless various protections and access are provided. If you really knew anything about buildings, you would know the purpose of various protection systems and there relationship to egress requirements.

Thirteen plus years have passed......troofers would rather stay ignorant and scared instead of learning anything.

 

[DGM]

I don't pretend to have all the answers and it is no doubt easier to invalidate a given hypothesis than to formulate an alternative. Initially when I looked, with others at the drawings for 7 the first thing to do was to check what NIST said against the drawings and see if they accurately reflected each other. This was clearly not the case with particular respect to the very connection that NIST homed in on at C79. Straight away, that set alarm bells ringing. ie If NIST can make such glaring errors at the connections they were putting under most scrutiny, then that does not bode well for the rest of their analysis.
NIST did admit some of these errors but failed to account for the difference that these errors could make to their analysis. The right thing for them to do would have been to redo the analysis at that point but they did not.
Given adequate resources, I would like to replicate the observed collapse in a model by removing connections at a given number of columns until the result mirrored the observations of the collapse in reality. At that point we would then know the extent to which the fire would have to attack the building structurally in order to reproduce the observed collapse.
My gut feeling, based on what I have seen in the drawings is that there is just no way for an organic process such as fire is, to reproduce the effects that we see, but having not exhausted the alternative fire scenarios I am hesitant to hang my hat on the CD peg.
I prefer to keep an open mind as to what actually caused this and that means that controlled demolition cannot be ruled out as a cause at this point. Yes, it would be difficult to do on the day, and it would be a major undertaking and there are questions for sure about why anybody who had this intention would not just let the building burn out, but that alone does not invalidate the hypothesis that CD is a possibility. After all, anybody who believes the official account that we are offered already believes that something that we have formerly believed to be impossible occurred to result in the buildings demise.
In those circumstances it would be foolish to believe that which is less possible, over that which is less probable.
The alternative to NISTs explanation that fire did it is controlled demolition, and NIST have yet to prove that their theory holds water. That in itself does not mean that fire couldn't have done it, but it does mean that it would be foolish not to consider the alternative cause to be controlled demolition.
For the record, I would also like to state that CD is a far less comfortable possibility for me personally to entertain than NISTs "fire did it" theory.
To imagine that potentially any steel high rise could be prone to collapse due to fire actually scares me more than the thought that we haven't been told the truth about what happened to this building.

None of this points to they got it wrong to the point of CD. There is no such thing as indestructible, building codes are made to make the buildings survivable. Do you understand the difference? In this aspect building 7 exceeded code. Do you agree?

There is no mystery why this structure failed. Take away the protections the system will fail. Unless you can argue the systems to prevent failure were not compromised, you have no argument.

 

[rsalinger]

What the CTBUH Said ----

I was amazed to come back after a couple of years and find this still going on strong.

After reading a bit I looked into the CBTUH report and this is what I found.

"The Council has several technical questions about details of
the modeling; but we would not expect that to change the conclusions: that
the floor beams failed due to fire, which led to buckling of the internal columns resulting in global failure."

I really can't see the point of arguing that the "NIST got is horribly wrong" based on the CBTUH report when the report says this on the first page.

I'll check back on the thread in a couple of years again. In the meantime I will not be playing the piano.

Rgrds-Ross

 

[gerrycan]

That's from continuously operating from the premise that NIST was trying to find whether the building would collapse or not given the conditions. As they ruled out explosives, the purpose of the engineering work and simulations was to indicate a likely failure path, which they did. That's why CTBUH (and JSanderO, and others) could differ with NIST on the precise failure path, and still agree on the fire and maybe damage as an origin.

Gerrycan's quibble with NIST is precisely a quibble and a diversion.

So basically you are saying that your ignorance of building structural design and structural modeling, as well as fire dynamics modelling, leads you to reject the overwhelming number of experts in their specific fields, and accept as possible something that has been ruled out as impossible by multiple factors......because your "gut feeling" tells you that.

BTW......if you really knew ANYTHING about building structures, you would know that all steel buildings are very susceptible to fire damage and why the building code limits the size and height of structures unless various protections and access are provided. If you really knew anything about buildings, you would know the purpose of various protection systems and there relationship to egress requirements.

Thirteen plus years have passed......troofers would rather stay ignorant and scared instead of learning anything.

Look at my post again. I am not ruling anything out.
As for the rest of your bluster, the most respected people in the field of high rise steel structures who saw fit to publicly ask NIST whether elements that turned out to be present would in fact have prevented a failure as described in NISTs report were the CTBUH. They asked this publicly. They received no reply.
Out of interest, what is that little thing at the top of the girder at column 79 called ?
What do you base your belief in NISTs report on. Is it a thorough analysis of the drawings? I don't think so, and the experts opinions (absent those from within NIST) that you cite, were made in the absence of the drawings.
You can appeal to whatever numbers you like, but you will not change the reality that the CTBUH put their finger on an important omission that NIST made in their analysis, and neither you, NIST or anybody else can point out which elements NIST added to their analysis to compensate for the presence of the plates that the CTBUH clearly thought may have prevented the failure progression that NIST supposed.
As for the lack of knowledge you suppose I have, why don't you debate me live on video a week from today and illustrate that lack for all to see?
I am sure we won't be long in finding out who knows what about the issue.
Let me know roughly what weight you are, so I can obtain a basket big enough to hand your ass back to you in.

 

[slowsmile]

Gerrycan likes his thermite.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1060626885&postcount=141