'What about building 7'?

[gerrycan]

gerrycan: Do you dispute the fact they agree on the conclusion?

The CTUBH were responding to a report Into a collapse by fire. They agreed that it was due to fire.

 

[DGM]

The CTUBH were responding to a report Into a collapse by fire. They agreed that it was due to fire.

Do you agree or are you also at ends with them?

Can I ask you stop insulting our intelligence by making obvious false statements*? The discussion will progress better that way.

* CTBUH totally disagrees with the NIST

* They expressed these views without having access to the structural drawings

 

[gerrycan]

Doesn't answer the question. Is this a problem for you?

I would like to see your evidence for the bold. ETA: pretty please.

Given that they were responding to a draft for public comment, that predates the release of the drawings by some years it's safe to say that they didn't have the drawings.
Also, if they did have access to them, they would have looked at the girder detail in the correct drawings and would have been able to ask about additional elements specifically.

 

[DGM]

Given that they were responding to a draft for public comment, that predates the release of the drawings by some years it's safe to say that they didn't have the drawings.
Also, if they did have access to them, they would have looked at the girder detail in the correct drawings and would have been able to ask about additional elements specifically.

Shouldn't you say "release to the general public"?

Please stop making these statements. I does nothing to help your argument.


ETA: I hate to tell you but the drawing have been available ever since the building was built. We need them to make renovations. Not on the internet is not the same as unavailable.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

More hamster wheel spinning by TZ. The purpose was to discover the initiating event......no the total collapse. No person based in reality expect and sort of total collapse model......only troofers insist on that nonsense.

Tony's hinging his entire premise on the notion that NIST got the initiation features wrong, therefore "CD". Gerrycan's making the same case that NIST made errors on the initiation mechanism but defined no clear positioning on where this angle takes him. Seeing his latest remarks, he seems to "imply" by saying "it would be interesting to hear the CBUTH's thoughts now [paraphrase]".

I'm in agreement with your comment on their approach, I'm just of the mind that dabbling in this matter of meta detail is relevant only to people who feel it has significant relevance to building codes that arose from NISTs conclusions. It's not a level of detail that changes matters at a macroscopic level, which is why there's leeway for discussion on this, just not for a "CD" scenario.

EDIT:
And seeing as how quoting the CTBUH is the in-thing now, let's go to the source, which also gets the point I have made across/...

The Council believes that the NIST report is a responsible attempt to find the
cause of the failure, and finds that the report has investigated many of the
probable causes. 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.

However, the Council feels that the report does not adequately investigate the implications that this failure has on the design practice for tall buildings, as per Objective No. 4 in the NIST report. Although the NIST report clearly
identifies factors that could have mitigated the structural response (Chapter
14.6), it does not investigate how effectively changes to design practices
could have improved performance.

The NIST report recommends that in the future, buildings should be designed
so that they do not collapse, even in an extreme fire, and even if the sprinkler
system fails or is overwhelmed by the fire. The approach recommended by
NIST is essentially a performance-based approach which explicitly checks the
performance of structure in fire. This approach is becoming commonplace for
some buildings which are considered special due to their extreme height or
complex design. However, such an approach is less common for more typical
high-rise buildings.


The Council supports the use of Performance-Based Design (PBD) for tall
buildings. However, within the industry there is a lack of knowledge and
consensus about how PBD should be implemented and there is a need for
the industry to share knowledge and develop an understanding. The Council
does encourage NIST to set an example in this respect and hypothesize a
performance-based approach to WTC 7 and identify what specific structural
changes would have made this building perform to an “acceptable” level.

Continued on the original 2008 comments:
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/upload/combined2008publicComments.pdf

So what we have is an example where the disagreement was well outlined, and while it may or may not be an agreeable position to some, it was a rational explanation of the criticism. This is the sort of clarification I was asking for from the thread participants.

Oh... and the kicker:

The Council would like to make it clear that it sees no credibility whatsoever in
the 911 ‘truth movement’ and we believe, with the vast majority of tall building
professionals, that all the failures at the WTC (WTC 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7) were a
direct or indirect result of the planes that were flown into the two towers. We
have carefully looked at the evidence that the 911 ‘truth movement’ presents
and we cannot see any credible scientific evidence of a controlled demolition
on WTC 7 or any of the other WTC buildings. The Council considers that the
‘truth movement’ is a distraction and should not obfuscate the performance
issues which should be at the center of the debate about how best to continue
to improve and develop fire and life safety in tall buildings.

 

[DGM]

Given that they were responding to a draft for public comment, that predates the release of the drawings by some years it's safe to say that they didn't have the drawings.

This is a point I'd like to outline. What is your definition of "released"?

I have a full copy of the Prudential Center in Boston (some where). You couldn't find this on the internet. What constitutes "released". Do you understand the concept of "need to know"?

 

[jaydeehess]

You need to quote what the CTBUH actually said instead of paraphrasing them in a way that suits your assertions, which as you can see below, they clearly do not concur with.

Originally Posted by CTBUH View Post
The Council does not agree with the NIST statement that the failure was a result of the buckling of Column 79.

Odd that you would decide to exclude the very next sentence following that quote. At least as it appears on page ten here:

www.ctbuh.org/Portals/0/.../CTBUH_NISTwtc7_ DraftReport.pdf

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The Council does not agree with the NIST statement that the failure was a
result of the buckling of Column 79. We believe that the failure was a result of
the collapse of the floor structure that led to loss of lateral restraint and then
buckling of internal columns. This is an important distinction, as NIST appears
to be seeking improved performance from floors rather than columns.
The Council would like to know if there are any simple changes to the floors
and connections that would have resulted in a better performance than
occurred.

The full text

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

It's Déjà Vu all over again!

 

[Grizzly Bear]

It's Déjà Vu all over again!

I suppose the old saying about CT's is really true... the purpose of the CT is to bog the discussion down... I lament about the way both sides act but come on... this discussion was had a year ago, and gerry, et al have made ZERO progression. I suppose this answers the question I had, he didn't specify a year ago, and has not advanced any further on the discussion

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

I suppose the old saying about CT's is really true... the purpose of the CT is to bog the discussion down... I lament about the way both sides act but come on... this discussion was had a year ago, and gerry, et al have made ZERO progression. I suppose this answers the question I had, or tells me what to expect.

It's what Gerry does. In case you haven't seen it, here's his gameplan:

...when I approach a would be debunker and steer clear of claims like "inside job", "US govt complicity", and even "freefall acceleration and thermitic material", but just stick to "they got the report wrong, missed out elements and made errors and should redo their analysis" - there is no defense. The issue is there in black and white and is undeniable. The only response that opposers can resort to is to try and move onto the aforementioned points that I have chosen for now, to steer clear of, and that fact alone indicates where the WTC7 report weak point really is.
Inside job, freefall, thermite etc have woken up all the people that they are going to in terms of mass. I believe it is now time to change the game plan and to use the numbers that these pertinent and relevant issues have helped gain for our cause. And I am convinced that the way to do this is to ask people to take that first step of entertaining the possibility that the WTC7 report is provably false, and allow them to draw their own conclusions rather than ask them to step straight to the finish line of "911 was an inside job".

 

[jaydeehess]

Is their severe exterior deformation shown in a modeling that contains a fully defined, moment framed exterior?

IIRC no. It does so in a modeling that simplifies the perimeter frame.

Its also noted that the severe deformation is much greater in the model that does not include south facade damage which seems the common model for AE911T to use when speaking of this deformation.

 

[LSSBB]

IIRC no. It does so in a modeling that simplifies the perimeter frame.

Its also noted that the severe deformation is much greater in the model that does not include south facade damage which seems the common model for AE911T to use when speaking of this deformation.

I didn't think so either, however if Tony wants to defend the severe deformation model as relevant for comparison I would think he would find justification. I remember MM trying to get some mileage out of that one also.

Why do Truther always keep avoiding the moment framing? Except for C7, he brought it up to try and score some point or other, making me aware of it, although it demolishes more Truther points than it supports (if any).

 

[jaydeehess]

It strikes me that if AE911T wishes to demonstrate a better finite element analysis approach to the question of whether or not NIST's is valid, they have had a decade to produce one themselves.

NIST did its research to determine the input parameters in their various computer Sims. AE991T could do the same. Even start small and simply do a fire intensity and spread simulation.

 

[DGM]

NIST did its research to determine the input parameters in their various computer Sims. AE991T could do the same. Even start small and simply do a fire intensity and spread simulation.

They did. They showed that MS Paint is an invaluable tool.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

It's what Gerry does. In case you haven't seen it, here's his gameplan:

In other words, his argument is if NIST is wrong on a single hair splitting detail, the inside job angle should be validated by simply process of elimination and persuasion. Tip for the folks adopting such an approach, never post your intentions on the internetz like that. That basically tells everyone that discussing the merits of an issue will be a waste of time.

Folks... by his own words, there is no interest in examining any angle other than above. Take the disclaimer to heart, these criticisms of the NIST report are not out of alternative collapse mechanisms that could be reasonably assessed in the event that the NIST assumptions were off base or missed some implications... It's all about letting people "come to their own conclusions" that there was an "inside job"....

 

[MileHighMadness]

It's what Gerry does. In case you haven't seen it, here's his gameplan:

Wow....can you say epic failure...sure you can...and don't call me Shirley.

 

[Dave Rogers]

In other words, his argument is if NIST is wrong on a single hair splitting detail, the inside job angle should be validated by simply process of elimination and persuasion.

It's quite a complex fallacy actually, a combination of the Nirvana fallacy, the false dilemma, and denying the antecedent. I think this is the train of logic involved:

P1: If the NIST model gives a good description of the collapse of WTC7, then it was caused by fire damage.
P2: The NIST model does not give a perfect description of all features of the collapse.
C1: Therefore, the NIST model is incorrect [1] and does not give a good description of the collapse [2].
C2: Therefore, the collapse was not caused by fire damage [3].

[1] False dilemma: the NIST model may be anywhere on a continuum from entirely correct to entirely incorrect.
[2] Nirvana fallacy: The NIST model may still give a good overall description of the collapse even though some elements of the collapse are not well described.
[3] Denying the antecedent: Even if the NIST model is incorrect, the building may have collapsed due to a different fire-induced mechanism.

Quite an impressive chain of fallacies.

Dave

 

[beachnut]

... playing the NIST card; 911 truth are the ones who need NIST, not me, not the posters here; too bad there is failure to produce rational analysis on NIST. When does the CD evidence come? Never...

Exactly correct. This was an attempt at a focused debate with regard to girder walk off. Those here who agree with NIST made the blunder of trying to use the CTBUH to support their assertions without realising that the CTBUH totally disagree with them and NIST. Now they are trying to bury that fact in a blizzard of BS.

You are making up BS about NIST due to your failure to present you theory of CD, a fantasy. Why do you make up BS about posters, as if we need NIST to understand 911 - you make up lies about who is supporting NIST, when it is your inability to produce any meaningful engineering points to back up your lies about NIST. You are the NISTians, not the posters here; you are making the mistake, you make NIST the subject, when you need to present your theory; the fantasy of CD.

Where is your theory, and the evidence? Did you and ziggi forget it; as you run out of BS, because your BS runs thin, and have no ability to stick with stuff you make up as you go - it evaporates, and you have to make posts like this, more BS about NIST and CTBUH.

Fire did it; try to refute that claim - you can't. And when it really gets tough the play the "English" card BS, exposing your lack of comprehension, so you make a personal attack, why don't you understand the questions.

What a bunch of BS. It matters not if NIST is right, or CTBUH is right, the 911 truth CD BS is a fantasy; and you have failed to present evidence for your theory, and only continue to prove you don't understand engineering done by NIST.

You and Ziggi need NIST. When do you present your probable cause; soon? Fire did it, get over the fixation with NIST, who needs NIST, only you and Ziggi, and the failed 911 truth movement.


An engineer does not attack a work, an engineer does his own work and proves his claim; you and ziggi are not engineers, you are conspiracy theorists with some BS "new approach" to recruit people who can't do math,science, physics, and engineering. You and ziggi were fooled by 911 truth with the lie of CD, and you can't figure out why no one here needs NIST, as you flounder trying to do engineering, which you have failed to do.

Make you own claims, show your work, and evidence.

Complaining you don't have the data, or the drawings, etc, is the sign you have zero engineers in 911 truth; engineers don't quibble about BS like 911 truth does, they get the job done. 911 truth has fooled you, and left you holding the bag of BS, and you are using your BS method of bashing NIST, unable to realize it was fire, you have to refute fire did it, not NIST. Engineers don't cry

NISTians, are 911 truth, I could care less what NIST did. 911 truth can't defend CD; they are stuck spreading lies about posters here; as they fail to support the CD probable cause, it is a fantasy. [/end typing practice]

On a strictly objective basis I don't think you can say NIST showed what you are claiming. To start with their model does not replicate the actual failure, as it shows severe exterior deformation during the initial collapse, which is not observed in reality. ...

BS

Stop exposing a lack of knowledge of models, saying the NIST model does not look like reality. It exposes an ignorance of engineering models. NIST was not doing CGI, they are trying to do engineering, not a Hollywood presentation. It is sad to see the lack of knowledge in 911 truth so called engineers; thinking a valid model visual representation has to "look" like the real world collapse - sad to see any engineers make this error; It exposes a lack of experience in engineering models.

The realcddeal remains a fantasy;- zero evidence.


Where is your model?

 

[Ziggi]

You missed the other half of the assumptions.....the other nonsense claim is based on the assumption that the girder had to be pushed the entire length, and that the only beam capable was the one closest to column 79 where they keep falling back to the 5.5 vs 6.25 dimensions and the nonsense about the web stiffeners. Fact is that there were more than one beam reacting to the girder, and the reactions were to 2-dimensional.

Troofers unable to grasp the errors in both assumptions wil continue to fall for TZ's paper napkin calculations.

He did not miss it, you poor thing, Animal. Pgimeno is, to his credit, not trying to bring back that fantasy about some floor beam creating a leverage effect, because this myth has already been addressed and debunked, a couple of days ago, on this very thread. The scenario you propose is impossible. You are the one unable to keep up, and one might propose that you should not talk about people "unable to grasp errors". Then again, you are the posterboy for the forum, so keep ranting.

Post 3938
"it is not possible according to NIST´s data, which shows the beam closes to column 79 (and all but one beam) still connected to the girder, which means this leverage story is a total fantasy conjured up on this forum. "