'What about building 7'?

[Oystein]

Yes and that post indicates that thermitic material is a possibility that should be considered.

I have a theory that platoons of midgets with hand saws sawed away the steel supports and made the towers collapse.
Midgets exist
Hand-saws exist
It is possible to saw steel by hand.
So it is a possibility.

Should my theory be considered?
If not, why not
Why should the thermite theory be considered?

 

[Oystein]

You're quite right on the date. It's this one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQ1P2K1j-gQ
As for the fighting of the fire, how many of the floors did they fight that on?

Speaking from memory: There was active fire suppression on ALL floors, as sprinklers were working fine.
That's why the fire never spread significantly to the inside, and probaly never created greatly elevated temperatures in closed spaces.

 

[Oystein]

It is important to base any alternative explanation for the collapse on a solid foundation. Part of that foundation is being able to prove that the current official story is invalid.
For example, if a group of people were to produce an ansys model and subject it to the same conditions that NIST claim to have done and got a different result.

Out of curiosity, gerrycan: Are you, or your group (who is that, anyway? I imagine that's the same group kawika mentions as his occasionally on 911Blogger?) involved in AE911Truth's 2015 agenda issue to model WTC7? If so, in what capacity - driving force, contributing research, or just some consultation?

 

[Animal]

gerrycan's motives are to avoid explain his claims at all costs. He is exactly like someone on a religious road ministry, trying to convert, using his special tactic to back in believe in his religous fantasy of CD. It is not that gerrycan has zero engineering experience, gee, he has engineered a tactic of not saying "inside job", not explaining why he believes (which is based on faith alone, he can't offer evidence).

I wish I had a nickel for every "I am just asking questions" type troofer I have encountered.....I could have retired long ago.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I am open to any explanation as to how wtc7 collapsed. As it stands there is not a reasonable explanation for how fire could initiate it and it remains therefore possible that it was brought down with explosives.
I wonder if your mind remains as open to either possibility.

Classic fractured conspiracy theorist logic; if you can't prove the official story beyond possible doubt then my impossible conspiracy is just as likely. By that tortured logic it remains therefore possible that it was demolished by alien heat rays, or severed with a single blow from a mighty herring. Both of those are no less possible than the silent explosives that would have been required to produce what was observed on 9/11. Quite simply, the NIST report is irrelevant to the question of whether 9/11 was brought down with explosives; it's obvious that it wasn't.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

This is the interesting thing, Gerry is not offering evidence of CD because he doesn't have any but also believes it was CD and also that it wasn't CD.

He doesn't support AE911truth but also does support their claims.

He doesn't support the NIST but also does support the NIST in using their work without supplying an alternative.

He is also an expert in steel framed structures but actually a piano player. When confronted by some one with knowledge ignores them.

He claims to be concerned about issues of public safety, yet as far as I can make out doesn't know what these concerns are.

Wants a new inquiry yet doesn't appear to know why. As far as I have seen has not offered one safety measure that he thinks should be made compulsory in new structures.

The term commonly used is "no-claimer". He avoids making positive claims because it would leave them open to refutation, and at the same time pretends that refuting one specific scenario of fire induced collapse will refute all the body of knowledge about 9/11 and magically prove whatever claim he then chooses to make. It's not even worth responding to, except as relief for boredom.

Dave

 

[JayUtah]

I am taking your claims of fact at base value. It seems no one here outright denies their veracity.

Not the veracity, the interpretation. Gerrycan's argument seems to rely on exactly this sort of acceptance because the premise he is hiding is the notion that if the model doesn't exactly replicate the geometry of the joint, then it can't be relied upon to exhibit reliable behavior. I have previously explained collectively in a number of posts why this sort of analysis must in some cases rely upon behavioral fidelity achieved by programmatic or other means, even where geometric fidelity is not achieved or maintained.

But the question of geometric fidelity is an easy one to sell to laymen. It's a simple matter of noting the apparent differences between two pictures, which anyone can do. What anyone can't do is tell whether the resulting omissions or additions have been compensated for programmatically, whether they contribute to the behavior that's meant to be investigated by a particular model run, and whether the conclusions drawn later on evidence that includes the computer results properly incorporates the confidence in the model.

These require expert judgment, which to me explains why none of the handwaving among conspiracy theorists manages to attract experts' attention.

...noting that the CTBUH also mentioned this with some concern, I agree with your conclusion that, ideally, some of the analysis ought to be redone (provided a favorable cost-benefit ratio).

CTBUH's comments are being somewhat misapplied. They're concerned that the analysis from NIST doesn't do much to help designers design better bracing systems and related structures, which was one of NIST's stated goals. CTBUH says a more geometrically faithful model would help designers understand in more detail how the joints performed (which is informative to designers) and not just use column 79 as a whipping boy (which is not informative to designers).

What CTBUH does not do is claim that the assumptions and programmatic extensions in the NIST make it unreliable in determining the reason for WTC 7's global failure -- a different stated goal. They say this a number of times.

 

[Spanx]

Everyone agrees that regardless of what form of damage 7WTC sustained on 9/11, it was gravity that brought it down.


[qimg]http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj515/Miragememories/BlockBuildingReducedComp_zpsf3155abe.png[/qimg]
For the purpose of illustration, I present a building made of blocks.

The reason for this is to show that there is really only one way that gravity can induce a steel-structured high rise to drop in the symmetrical manner that was observed with 7WTC on 9/11.

[qimg]http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj515/Miragememories/WTC7Comp-7302014_zpscb34b8b8.png[/qimg]

Now of course my block building is not made of welded and bolted interconnected steel, but it is still subjected to the same gravitational force as 7WTC.

The beauty of the block building is that it should be an easy structure in which to induce a collapse.

If debris damage and fire can make a steel-structure office highrise collapse, one would expect that debris damage and fire would more easily make a wooden block high-rise collapse.

So how does one make this simplest of structures drop-in-total like what occurred with 7WTC?

Debris damage would certainly reduce it somewhat, but short of striking it with a building-sized bowling ball, part of the structure would remain standing.

An un-fought fire would certainly reduce the whole structure to ashes but I cannot imagine a point where a 'balanced' total structural drop, comparable to what 7WTC experienced could occur.

Of course a fire that did not occur throughout the whole structure would result in only partial destruction.

A combination of debris damage and fire would only result in partial destruction.

Fire on the lower floors would have to equally destroy support across 8 whole floors in order for the structure to drop 8 floors like 7WTC (remember the close to level roofline).

So what would cause this wooden block high-rise to completely drop to the ground.

The only thing I can imagine, is an explosive force acting on the core support at the lower floors which totally removes the structure's ability to resist the force of gravity.

When you consider that 7WTC was not made up of wooden structural members held loosely in place by friction and mass, but by steel, mass, welds, bracing, bolts etc., the ability of debris damage and unfought fires to make the whole building drop for a period of proven freefall, or even close to freefall, becomes virtually impossible.



[qimg]http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj515/Miragememories/images_zps5ea8c08b.jpg[/qimg]


[qimg]http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj515/Miragememories/CollapseComp-images2_zps58962550.jpg[/qimg]

What about the effect of column 79's presumed failure and the observed drop of the east penthouse?

That still would not explain the largely unaffected attached facade, or the east side dropping in-sync with the west side.

Is this a joke ?

 

[turingtest]

Classic fractured conspiracy theorist logic; if you can't prove the official story beyond possible doubt then my impossible conspiracy is just as likely. By that tortured logic it remains therefore possible that it was demolished by alien heat rays, or severed with a single blow from a mighty herring. Both of those are no less possible than the silent explosives that would have been required to produce what was observed on 9/11. Quite simply, the NIST report is irrelevant to the question of whether 9/11 was brought down with explosives; it's obvious that it wasn't.

Dave

Not to beat the horse too dead, but that's a favorite of creationists too- if you can't prove beyond all doubt every detail of the TOE (to people who don't understand even its basics), then "goddidit!" has an automatic parity as explanation (even though it's really no explanation at all). Consilience be damned; if it can be set up as a pure dichotomy, then evidence doesn't matter, only the fact of the struggle between opposing POVs.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Is this a joke ?

In my experience, MM really seems to think like that. It's kind of frightening.

Dave

 

[Oystein]

JayUtah,

I realize that your approach of debating big-picture methodology has the potential to beat narrow focus and invalid extrapolation, hands down. So why dance around that narrow detail for two and more pages? Let's just concede it, and quickly move on to the real debate. I know you have done work towards that, Dave Rogers surely has ages ago, but there are some around here who still dance the dance and don't look good doing it, IMO. Worse yet: By dancing the bad dance, they forfeit chances to make gerrycan look bad.

 

[Spanx]

In my experience, MM really seems to think like that. It's kind of frightening.

Dave

Maybe he is a member of Gerry's secret gang ?

I wouldn't be surprised if it gets sent off to the NIST

 

[JayUtah]

I realize that your approach of debating big-picture methodology has the potential to beat narrow focus and invalid extrapolation, hands down. So why dance around that narrow detail for two and more pages? Let's just concede it, and quickly move on to the real debate.

Why do you think gerrycan has any interest in the real debate? After 15 years of debating conspiracy theorists, I know what I'm doing and I know precisely the rhetorical trap gerrycan is trying to lay.

 

[Animal]

Why do you think gerrycan has any interest in the real debate? After 15 years of debating conspiracy theorists, I know what I'm doing and I know precisely the rhetorical trap gerrycan is trying to lay.

Of course he doesn't....that is why he constantly jumps to conclusions, moves the goal posts, changes subjects etc. when his claims are challenged without being spoonfed.

 

[beachnut]

It has been well shown that the NIST, in spite of years of investigation and analysis, have failed in their mission.

What is your mission? NIST failed how? BTW, Fire is why WTC 7 collapsed, without fire, no collapse. List NIST goals and explain how they failed? You can't do it, you talk BS and fail to support it - this does not support the thermite fantasy. Why are you obsessed with NIST?

...
The NIST as you pointed out, determined (falsely) that the true cause of the sudden, complete collapse of 7WTC, was the unfought roaming office cubicle fires. ...

Wow, it is amazing they had to leave the building for unfought roaming office cubicle fires. What is cool you have the fantasy thermite theory which is false and based on BS.

Why would unfought roaming office cubicle fires do any damage when fought roaming office cubicle fires don't do more than total a building, never to be used again?

As you can see, only minor never used again building damage was done by fought fires, no wonder you are in awe of the facts and evidence NIST has ...
I can't believe you post unsupported BS as your facts and evidence, as if what you say is proof enough for the lies of CD, and the failed fantasy of thermite.

As we all know based on 911 truth logic, steel never fails in fire... repeat and believe, steel never fails in fire, and ...

Steel never fails in fire! Say it again, repeat until you believe - don't look at the photo above... I said

And then we have the best part of the BS... the elusive unfought roaming office cubicle fires, which can't do harm to anything...

Don't look at the photo, I mean, why leave the building, it can't destroy buildings, it is only the benign unfought roaming office cubicle fires.

http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/tr-049.pdf
And 911 truth faith based believers with no evidence, do not read the report on One Meridian Plaza, that could constitute research and learning, and gaining knowledge will invalidate your membership in the dumbest movement since Bigfoot and Flat-Earth. Don't read or learn, be good 911 truth believers, followers to the end. Don't learn about fire, steel, and science, all bad news if you want to remain a loyal follower. BTW, don't age, if you live long enough your skills to comprehend might get better, and you will not believe 911 truth any longer; remember Santa, it sucks to learn your world is fantasy, and then you have to go work.

 

[BasqueArch]

Originally Posted by BasqueArch
The 44-79 girder was the most heavily loaded beam/girder in the typical floor above the 5th; it had the longest span.

You must be looking at the wrong building there, or you just don't comprehend the typical framing plan. The girder from 79 = 44 isn't even in the top ten in a typical floor of the building as far as span goes.
What about A3016 for example? And that is without even looking closely.
Doesn't bode well for your other claims does it.
What drawing are you looking at and what span do you think that the girder you cite as the longest has?

ETA - Do you by any chance work for NIST ?

You'd have been better just putting your hands up to that one. Maybe you could claim it was a typo and release an erratum statement. NIST did this over an alleged typo pertaining to a difference of 3/4", but you are stretching it a bit, well actually rather more than just a bit.
It was just under 46ft. Of the girders that connected the core columns to the North face it was one of the shortest spans.

I don’t do research on these things as much anymore. It’s a waste of time. Can you point out the other 10 girders with longer spans than the C44-79 one?

 

[BasqueArch]

Yes. Not only did NISTadd elements that strengthened the system in the one story model but they also neglected to consider other means of failure of the girder. The 44-79 girder was the most heavily loaded beam/girder in the typical floor above the 5th; it had the longest span; it was slender instead of compact; it had holes cut into the web for ac ducts; it did not have shear studs connecting it to the slab; beams were framed to it on one side only; the ends were loose - failure of this moribund girder by bending wasn't even considered by NIST. Also the girder seat would have failled in time had the girder survived the multiple wounds by fire. You don' hear about this from not-truthers.

gerrycan, you didn’t answer the highlighted portions.

 

[gerrycan]

I don’t do research on these things as much anymore. It’s a waste of time. Can you point out the other 10 girders with longer spans than the C44-79 one?

The drawing you need to look at is called e12/13. When I get home I can find it for you and you can look for yourself. If you get a hold of it the measurements on it are centre to centre spans rather than element lengths.
I hope I didn't offend you by highlighting the issue. I genuinely just thought it was funny. Let me know if you can't find the drawing and I'll get it for you later. It's a typical floor framing plan. For the precise girder lengths you would need to specify which girder you were after as they are on more element specific drawings. The differences will only be a couple of inches though from the spans quoted in the E12/13 typical floor framing plan.

 

[gerrycan]

gerrycan, you didn’t answer the highlighted portions.

Fair enough. If you particularly want to prolong the agony I'll respond to that later. Though given that you clearly have scant knowledge if the drawings I don't see why you would want to.

 

[BasqueArch]

The drawing you need to look at is called e12/13. When I get home I can find it for you and you can look for yourself. If you get a hold of it the measurements on it are centre to centre spans rather than element lengths.
I hope I didn't offend you by highlighting the issue. I genuinely just thought it was funny. Let me know if you can't find the drawing and I'll get it for you later. It's a typical floor framing plan. For the precise girder lengths you would need to specify which girder you were after as they are on more element specific drawings. The differences will only be a couple of inches though from the spans quoted in the E12/13 typical floor framing plan.

Ok. You can just post a plan here and name the girders such as xx-xx,yy-yy ... are longer than 79-44. Can you answer the highlighted portions. Where's "A3016".