'What about building 7'?

[pgimeno]

Pgimeno, you are trying to obfuscate a very simple thing which is very clearly stated by NIST in chapter 11/page 488. It gives two possible modes of walk off failure:

1) by axial movement 2) by lateral movement.

No matter how much you try to confuse the issue, it is comletely obvious that the axial/straight forward or backwards movement of a beam or a girder will not push it to the side and leave it resting on only one side; only the second choice, the lateral/sideways movement, will leave a beam or girder resting on only one side/that one flange on that side.

And page 488 goes on to explain that the failure mode of option 2, the lateral walk off, is by the lack of flexural stiffness of that one flange.

There is absolutely no ambiguity here unless someone tries to create it by quoting selected parts out of context.

The only question is whether or not the walk off scenario at the 44-79 girder is by 1) axial displacement or 2) lateral displacement.

And again, NIST very clearly answers this question in chapter 11/page 525:

"The bearing seat at Column 79 was 11 in. (revised to 12) wide. Thus, when the girder end at Column 79 had been pushed laterally at least 5.5 in (revised to 6.25), it was no longer supported by the bearing seat."

Chapter 11 therefore concludes that the girder en at column 79 walked off the seat once the girder had somehow been displaced sideways/laterally 6.25 inches, at which point it was only resting on that one bottom flange on one side of the girder, which consequently folds due to lack of "flexural stiffness".

I have made my point on the ambiguity, which is there whether you acknowledge it or not.

But regardless of which interpretation NIST actually meant that applied to the girders, that's just a side question on the precision of that paragraph, and matters little to whether the analysis is correct or not. What matters is whether the stiffeners would have made a significant difference. Thus the question that I told gerrycan he needed to find the answer for:

Is it reasonable to consider a girder failed when its web is off its seat, even if there are web stiffener plates welded to the bottom flange?

I just want to see if anyone here can actually justify NIST´s walk off theory with actual data and numbers.

No one needs to. As has been proven in this thread, the flaws that "truthers" claim to have found are all based on false premises. Since those criticisms do not hold any water from an engineering standpoint, the report stands on its own.


Now please either prove or retract this accusation:

I have read what they replied to Cole, and they don't say the part I've highlighted. Can you provide the citation where they said it would not have any strengthening effect? Or are you making up words that NIST never said?

 

[Ziggi]

I have made my point on the ambiguity, which is there whether you acknowledge it or not.

You made your point by quoting things out of context but you obviously cannot refute my clearly argued refutation of your point, as outlined in the post you refer to. And neither can any of your buddies here. You are trying to avoid the issue by giving no real response, because your whole defence depends on denying NIST´s walk of story and substituting your own version.

What matters is whether the stiffeners would have made a significant difference.

Of course they matter when we are talking about NIST´s walk off theory, which depends on the flange folding. I assume they don´t matter in your made up version of the walk off theory, but that is irrelevant.

And the stiffeners do not really matter until it can be shown that the girder could be displaced well beyond 6 inches. Gerry can tell you how many inches of displacement are needed to fold a flange with the stiffeners, but from memory I think it is more than 8 inches.

But this is not that much of an issue right now because no-one has shown that 5 inches are possible, let alone more than 6 or more than 8 inches.

Neither NIST or anyone else has shown that the 6.25 inch displacement is plausible. And it seem obvious that no-one here is going to attempt it.

Now please either prove or retract this accusation:

There is no need to, it is plainly obvious for all those that acknowledge NIST´s walk off theory.

...

I am going to give this discussion about the displacement of the girder a little break for now, to allow readers time to catch up and do research on their own. And also give time for anyone here that might want to attempt to show how the 6.25 inch displacement could be possible, with or without the alleged displacement of the column.

In the meantime I will address some other points pgimeno made in response to gerrycan.

 

[beachnut]

... attempt to show how the 6.25 inch displacement could be possible, with or without the alleged displacement of the column. ...

No one has to prove the displacement is possible. You can't prove it is not possible, you don't do engineering as exposed in your posts. You don't understand engineering models. Do you think if you were an engineer you could grasp why attacking NIST is BS, and you have to present and support your own claims, not prove NIST is impossible.


You have to show it can't happen. We don't have to do more than stand by and wait another 13 years for you to present your probable cause; do you have one? no

You never did try to address or answer the OP - why? Can't you answer questions? No.

You can't explain your version of WTC collapse, you attack NIST. You offer no theory, no engineering, no evidence; you attack NIST. Too bad you can't do a model of your version? What was your claim? Why can't you and the 2,000 engineers AE911T have do more than talk and attack NIST? Can't you guys do your own original work? As usual, 911 truth faith based followers use BS methods instead of engineering, and fail to make point.

Where is 911 truth's engineering explanation for WTC 7? Where is 911 truth's theory? Guess you guys can't present a theory since you have zero evidence for anything but there is no engineering expertise at AE911T to help you. When will you present engineering to prove NIST probable collapse is impossible. Do you do engineering, or talk. You have to do it, not anyone else.

The big problem; if NIST's probable cause is not correct, it was fire that caused the collapse. Fires not fought. By not presenting any claims on WTC 7, except the implied inside job, CD, explosives and the dumbed down thermite fantasy, 911 truth fails out of the box. is there a refund on this BS

Do you support deets weak implication it was CD? Why can't you state your claims?

 

[pgimeno]

But this is not that much of an issue right now because no-one has shown that 5 inches are possible, let alone more than 6 or more than 8 inches.

Neither NIST or anyone else has shown that the 6.25 inch displacement is plausible. And it seem obvious that no-one here is going to attempt it.

No, as I said there's no need. You are questioning it from a standpoint of mere incredulity. You're entitled to your own beliefs, of course. But that you believe it's incorrect doesn't make it so. The report is not "guilty until proved innocent". That's truther's ass-backwards way of thinking.

There is no need to, it is plainly obvious for all those that acknowledge NIST´s walk off theory.

I'll take your refusal to provide a quote as an admission that you made up these words. It's not the first time "truth" people have been caught doing that.

 

[Ziggi]

...The report is not "guilty until proved innocent". That's truther's ass-backwards way of thinking.

NO, the burden of proof is on NIST, which bases its theory on the assumption that the girder walked off the seat once it had been displaced 6.25 inches by some unexplained means. This is not a scientific theory without demonstration of how this displacement could have been possible, and it is becoming more and more apparent that it is in fact impossible, as best demonstrated by your refusal to bring forth some numbers.

I'll take your refusal to provide a quote as an admission that you made up these words. It's not the first time "truth" people have been caught doing that.

The truth of this "accusation" is obvious from the context: Gerry´s team argued with NIST that its theory is invalid because the stiffeners would strengthen that flange that allegedly folded. NIST´s response was saying no; the stiffeners were designed to stiffen the web not the flange.

 

[pgimeno]

On your claims of burden of proof, I rest my case that your arguments are based on incredulity.

The truth of this "accusation" is obvious from the context: Gerry´s team argued with NIST that its theory is invalid because the stiffeners would strengthen that flange that allegedly folded.

Again, reference?

This is what is posted as NIST's reply in 911blogger:

B) Given that Frankel drawing #9114 shows 3/4" web/flange stiffeners installed on the girder at the 13th floor column 79 connection, why weren't the stiffeners reported in NCSTAR 1-9 and shown in the figures listed above? Was Frankel Drawing #9114 used? If not, why not?

The web stiffeners shown at the end of the girder in Frankel drawing #9114 prevent web crippling. The structural analyses of WTC 7 did not show any web crippling failures. Therefore, the web crippling plates did not need to be included in the models/analyses.
​

http://911blogger.com/news/2013-11-06/nist-replies-stiffeners-inquiry

Where is the "arguing that their theory is invalid"? I see a question and an answer, with no arguing about the validity of anything.

Maybe the arguing was in the original email? It's posted here: http://911blogger.com/news/2013-09-25/60-days-nist-refuses-reply

No, no arguing there either.

Making stuff up again?

NIST´s response was saying no; the stiffeners were designed to stiffen the web not the flange.

Ok, at least you admit now that they didn't say that they would not have the effect of stiffening the flange as you claimed they said. Merely that they were not designed for that.

 

[Spanx]

Considering this thread has Ziggi (whoever he likes to think he is) gerrycan and his team of experts who produced four short YouTube clips and ae911 engineers looking on with very specific questions, it doesn't seem to be progressing very well.

Who knows, maybe Rick shaddock has something to offer ?

Will we be getting a guest appearance from Richard Gage ?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

How's this?

Thank you Redwood that seems to show damage to the upper roof line, if you have damage to the upper roof line connection failure is likely inducing more movement into the structure.
Arguing over an inch or two for girder walk off is pointless.

 

[Animal]

On your claims of burden of proof, I rest my case that your arguments are based on incredulity.


Again, reference?

This is what is posted as NIST's reply in 911blogger:

B) Given that Frankel drawing #9114 shows 3/4" web/flange stiffeners installed on the girder at the 13th floor column 79 connection, why weren't the stiffeners reported in NCSTAR 1-9 and shown in the figures listed above? Was Frankel Drawing #9114 used? If not, why not?

The web stiffeners shown at the end of the girder in Frankel drawing #9114 prevent web crippling. The structural analyses of WTC 7 did not show any web crippling failures. Therefore, the web crippling plates did not need to be included in the models/analyses.
​

http://911blogger.com/news/2013-11-06/nist-replies-stiffeners-inquiry

Where is the "arguing that their theory is invalid"? I see a question and an answer, with no arguing about the validity of anything.

Maybe the arguing was in the original email? It's posted here: http://911blogger.com/news/2013-09-25/60-days-nist-refuses-reply

No, no arguing there either.

Making stuff up again?



Ok, at least you admit now that they didn't say that they would not have the effect of stiffening the flange as you claimed they said. Merely that they were not designed for that.

He is just prepping to go back and claim "victory" over the "mighty" skeptics on this forum for refusing to answer his pointless questions.

 

[jaydeehess]

Considering this thread has Ziggi (whoever he likes to think he is) gerrycan and his team of experts who produced four short YouTube clips and ae911 engineers looking on with very specific questions, it doesn't seem to be progressing very well.

Who knows, maybe Rick shaddock has something to offer ?

Will we be getting a guest appearance from Richard Gage ?

wrt that; how is the AE911T promise to produce an FEA of their own and produce monthly updates on progress,,,,,, progressing?

 

[Oystein]

wrt that; how is the AE911T promise to produce an FEA of their own and produce monthly updates on progress,,,,,, progressing?

Asked, answered, and answer accepted (the last step is one of the things that separates rational people from Truthers).

 

[JayUtah]

I just want to see if anyone here can actually justify NIST´s walk off theory with actual data and numbers.

And I asked you to be more specific about "data and numbers." Give us a roadmap for how real engineers would have solved this problem in a different (and presumably more scientific) way. And maybe some examples of how real engineers have solved it differently (and presumably more scientifically) elsewhere, so we know your insistence has actual merit. Your inability to do so -- nay, your continued disinterest in even acknowledging that those questions were asked of you -- seems to be indicating that you want to impose a standard of evidence without being quizzed too hard on whether it's a good one.

As I said, this thread and the related ones in this subforum contain a discussion on the methodologies used. You say you're not interested in "pet theories," but unfortunately you've fallen into the trap of blatantly demanding only one kind of answer, without regard for whether it's the right kind of answer. That has the effect of begging the question. You want your blustery denials to be seen as some kind of intellectual victory, but you're not participating in the intellectual exercise with more than a semblance of interest.

 

[Oystein]

Say nicely "hello" and smile at someone blogging as "Strigoi" at the "Debunking the Debunkers" blog (home of Ziggi as well as JM Talboo, Adam Taylor, ScootleRoyal):

Title: A Disgraced Forum Tested One Last Time

Time to first lie? Let's see...

Ziggi Zugam is testing the remnants of the disgraced [1] forum that once belonged to JREF, to see [2] if anyone there can provide scientific support for NIST´s collapse initation theory for Building 7. The frontman [3] of this forum, Skeptic Magazine writer [4] Reverend Chris Mohr...

wowowow... putting bracketed numbers at the untruths I spot.
[1] in his mind only
[2] Nope, Ziggi didn't come here to see, he came here to pontificate
[3] We have no frontman. That's the first flat-out lie.
[4] I didn't know Chris' occupation is "Skeptic Magazine writer".

I'd say about 15 seconds to first lie, if reading at a normal pace.
Par for the course at DtD.

 

[Spanx]

Say nicely "hello" and smile at someone blogging as "Strigoi" at the "Debunking the Debunkers" blog (home of Ziggi as well as JM Talboo, Adam Taylor, ScootleRoyal):

Title: A Disgraced Forum Tested One Last Time

Time to first lie? Let's see...



wowowow... putting bracketed numbers at the untruths I spot.
[1] in his mind only
[2] Nope, Ziggi didn't come here to see, he came here to pontificate
[3] We have no frontman. That's the first flat-out lie.
[4] I didn't know Chris' occupation is "Skeptic Magazine writer".

I'd say about 15 seconds to first lie, if reading at a normal pace.
Par for the course at DtD.

Mmmm, judging by his first post here Grandiose delusions springs to mind.

 

[Animal]

Say nicely "hello" and smile at someone blogging as "Strigoi" at the "Debunking the Debunkers" blog (home of Ziggi as well as JM Talboo, Adam Taylor, ScootleRoyal):

Title: A Disgraced Forum Tested One Last Time

Time to first lie? Let's see...



wowowow... putting bracketed numbers at the untruths I spot.
[1] in his mind only
[2] Nope, Ziggi didn't come here to see, he came here to pontificate
[3] We have no frontman. That's the first flat-out lie.
[4] I didn't know Chris' occupation is "Skeptic Magazine writer".

I'd say about 15 seconds to first lie, if reading at a normal pace.
Par for the course at DtD.

Seems I hit it on the nose WRT his real intent

 

[Animal]

Mmmm, judging by his first post here Grandiose delusions springs to mind.

Someone should introduce him to "Dusty" They would make quite a team

 

[pgimeno]

Say nicely "hello" and smile at someone blogging as "Strigoi" at the "Debunking the Debunkers" blog (home of Ziggi as well as JM Talboo, Adam Taylor, ScootleRoyal):

Interested readers are encouraged to observe this debate, and see if NIST´s story is as utterly unscientific and wrong as suspected.

That's not what the debate was about. The debate shredded gerrycan's claims into pieces, and it was only about the straw man arguments that he built around NIST's report. Let's remind what a straw man is, as a logic fallacy:

A straw man is an intentional misrepresentation of an opponent's position, often used in debates with unsophisticated audiences to make it appear that the opponent's arguments are more easily defeated than they are. [Source: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Straw_man]
​

And that was what gerrycan was doing, and what was exposed during the debate. The debate prior to Ziggi's appearance focused on exposing those straw man arguments. This meant that the only apparently valid criticisms against the report were actually invalid.

It's Ziggi who tried to make it about justifying NIST's assertions. It never was the case. The report stands on its own merits, there are no arguments left contradicting it.

Along the way, a couple falsehoods (so far) that Ziggi tried to slip have been exposed, as he was trying to put things on NIST's mouth that they never said, thus making grounds for another straw-man fallacy on his part.

That's the balance so far. Therefore the claim that "t has been predicted that the prominent defenders of NIST on this forum will find excuses to avoid the discussion" is also bogus: it never was about that, and given the lack of any real technical arguments against the report, no discussion is necessary.

 

[JayUtah]

Therefore the claim that "t has been predicted that the prominent defenders of NIST on this forum will find excuses to avoid the discussion" is also bogus: it never was about that, and given the lack of any real technical arguments against the report, no discussion is necessary.

I think that's an accurate review. The straw man is part of a prescribed coup-counting exercise, meant to have one of two outcomes. If the interlocutors don't spot the straw man and instead fall for it, it becomes a loaded question. But if they do spot the straw man, the proponent accuses them of avoiding the issue. They didn't follow his script.

And I believe this sort of fairly obvious rhetorical nonsense is why the Truther movement doesn't get any traction in the relevant industries or sciences.

 

[LSSBB]

Of course they matter when we are talking about NIST´s walk off theory, which depends on the flange folding. I assume they don´t matter in your made up version of the walk off theory, but that is irrelevant.

Ziggi, do you know what Solution Convergence means?

 

[jaydeehess]

Asked, answered, and answer accepted (the last step is one of the things that separates rational people from Truthers).

I see. I believe I have commenting on the fact that AE911T, and organization populated supposedly by a great and significant number of specialists in the fields expressed in their title, seems more than willing to leave much of their technical sounding reports up to persons with no credentials at all.

So many many times we have been told, even recently on this thread iirc, that true engineers are willing to take on the task of producing technical papers and technical arguments online, only to have it amount to mere bluster and reversed burden of proof, straw man argument, and Gish gallop.