• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

'What about building 7'?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oystein said:
I have asked a short while ago, but didn't see an answer - sorry if I missed it:
Are you involved in the FEA project announced by AE911Truth as part of their "ambitious agenda for 2015"? If so, in what capacity? If not, do you know who is leading this effort, who is participating?
Click to expand...

This may shed some light on that:

http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/affiliate-marketing-program/880-volunteer-spotlight-david-cole.html

By the way, David Cole is who signed the letter to NIST that was linked recently. I initially thought it was Jonathan Cole, but later realized it wasn't the case.

ETA: I assume Cole is in gerrycan's team. Not so sure about Szamboti, as I haven't seem Szamboti's classic claims parroted by gerrycan. So these are two different teams.
 
Last edited:
pgimeno said:
This may shed some light on that:

http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/affiliate-marketing-program/880-volunteer-spotlight-david-cole.html

By the way, David Cole is who signed the letter to NIST that was linked recently. I initially thought it was Jonathan Cole, but later realized it wasn't the case.

ETA: I assume Cole is in gerrycan's team. Not so sure about Szamboti, as I haven't seem Szamboti's classic claims parroted by gerrycan. So these are two different teams.
Click to expand...

There mistake is easy to see the truthers are not applying the thermal expansion
As a nonlinear equation.
 
pgimeno said:
This may shed some light on that:

http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/affiliate-marketing-program/880-volunteer-spotlight-david-cole.html

By the way, David Cole is who signed the letter to NIST that was linked recently. I initially thought it was Jonathan Cole, but later realized it wasn't the case.

ETA: I assume Cole is in gerrycan's team. Not so sure about Szamboti, as I haven't seem Szamboti's classic claims parroted by gerrycan. So these are two different teams.
Click to expand...

What is David Cole's bio? I tried to look him up and all the top results are about the notorious Holocaust denier.
 
Oystein said:
Well thanks for demonstrating with utmost clarity AGAIN how you have zero understanding of the big picture: That this distance of 6.25 inches is measured BEFORE the assembly is distorted and deformed by fires - before, for example, col 79 was pushed east to decrease the required walk-off distance.


Thanks again for demonstrating your (possibly willful) ignorance: end plates <> stiffener plates.


You were wrong both times. Keep your ears and eyes shut if you want to converse this situation.
Click to expand...

Oystein, what non-sense. The alleged 6.25 inch expansion is caused by the fires. You are parroting a claim from pgimeno about column displacement east even though he had to admit that NIST never made that claim. What are trying to say about end plates - stiffeners? Are you confusing the two?

Parroting empty declarations is not a proper response. If you cannot address the argument, either say so or don´t say anything.
 
Ziggi said:
Oystein, what non-sense. The alleged 6.25 inch expansion is caused by the fires. You are parroting a claim from pgimeno about column displacement east even though he had to admit that NIST never made that claim. What are trying to say about end plates - stiffeners? Are you confusing the two?

Parroting empty declarations is not a proper response. If you cannot address the argument, either say so or don´t say anything.
Click to expand...

The only proper response to the obvious lack of credibility of the initiation hypothesis in the NIST WTC 7 report would be to have a new analysis and investigation done.

It was NIST's job to explain what happened, or most likely happened. They provably have not done that and a new investigation is warranted. All of the speculators on here (such as those claiming column 79 was pushed to the east to create greater relative movement of the seat of girder A2001 or that the girder walked off axially) can apply for a job on the new investigation or tell NIST their ideas to see if they can prove their speculation has merit there, because they haven't done it here.
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
Lessee, the fea Gerrycan wants done at the very least is one in which we look only at the girder connection at col 79 in complete isolation from the rest of the structure. It is to include every bolt, every item attached to the column at the girder that extends to col44.
We then heat all components using a fully detailed heat transfer algorithm on each piece, not forgetting the concrete slab of course. Now we move the girder in one direction and determine when and by what failure mechanism it fails. Then we redo it several more times and include various girder twist angles. Then we do it several more times through a range of heat inputs over time.....
Click to expand...

Yes of course he asks for analysis of the alleged failure point. That was supposed to be the purpose of the report. The CTBUH also commented that this analysis was missing from the report:
The report does not describe the detail failure mechanism of the girder connection to Column 79. Since this was critical to the failure we would expect to see diagrams of it, in its deflected, deformed shape immediately prior to collapse
Click to expand...
 
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
That's the kind of reasoning that often results from starting with the conclusion and then hunting for confirming evidence. You don't seem to understand how weak your evidence sounds to people who prefer to go the other way.
Click to expand...
pgimeno said:
That pretty much summarizes the last 25 pages.
Click to expand...

Ah, pgimeno, oberving your responses is so comical at times. Your attempt here to try to appear to dismiss truthers for the alleged behavior of hunting for confirmation evidence is of course funny coming from the man who made up all sorts of stories to try defend NIST´s story. But it is absolutely hilarious when you take a close look at Seger´s comments, which are all about keeping up the desperate search to find something to defend your pet story:

Before completely discounting the walk-off hypothesis (and pardon me for rehashing for the umpteenth time), what about the eastward displacement of column 79, or the induced torsion found in the Chapter 8 simulation? And if we still can't find enough reason to believe the girder was pushed off its seat, what about being pulled off the seat by thermal contraction, or just a general floor structure collapse, as suggested by the CTBUH?
Click to expand...

Pure gold:D
 
As for the flood of irrelvant non-sense comments in recent pages: JUST AS PREDICTED!

Interested readers are encouraged to observe this debate, and see if NIST´s story is as utterly unscientific and wrong as suspected. In addition, it should be interesting for "people on the fence" to discover how little scrutiny NIST´s story has received on this supposed forum of hard-core skeptics, or in other words, see how pseudo-skeptics have managed to bury the problems under the rug for more than 6 years. Yes, NIST´s final report on Building 7 was published in 2008.

It has been predicted that the prominent defenders of NIST on this forum will find excuses to avoid the discussion, and that their troll friends will attempt to bury the discussion with BS, in an effort to divert attention.
Click to expand...

:)
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The only proper response to the obvious lack of credibility of the initiation hypothesis in the NIST WTC 7 report would be to have a new analysis and investigation done.

It was NIST's job to explain what happened, or most likely happened. They provably have not done that and a new investigation is warranted. All of the speculators on here (such as those claiming column 79 was pushed to the east to create greater relative movement of the seat of girder A2001 or that the girder walked off axially) can apply for a job on the new investigation or tell NIST their ideas to see if they can prove their speculation has merit there, because they haven't done it here.
Click to expand...

It looks like it's time for you to step into the real world and do something about it.

The only trouble is, as soon as your name is mentioned (googled) you come across every crack pot site going including this 911 conspiracy sub forum.

What do you honestly think you are achieving ?
 
Last edited:
Quick bump for Gerry:

Reactor drone said:
"The top of the columns at floor 16 were fixed in the global x- and y- directions, to prevent lateral displacements..."

Note, only the top and bottoms were fixed in the x- and y- directions, the rest of the columns could move in all directions.
Click to expand...

gerrycan said:
Where does it say top AND bottom?
They were free in the z axis.
Click to expand...

Reactor drone said:
Just before the bit that I quoted.
Click to expand...

Oystein said:
...Here, let me read out p484 NCSTAR 1-9 for ya:

"Displacement Boundary Conditions

The column nodes at the base of the 16 story model were fully fixed to model the rigidity of the grillage and foundation (Chapter 2). The top of the columns at Floor 16 were fixed in the global x- and ydirections, to prevent lateral displacements, and were free in the global z-direction, to allow vertical displacement of the columns in response to gravity loads and thermal expansion. The purpose of the ANSYS model was to simulate the accumulation of local damages and failures up to the initiation of overall global collapse due to fire. The building was not expected to displace significantly in the x- and y-directions outside of the floors with no fire and there was no interaction between adjacent columns for relatively small motions in the z-direction, due to limited load re-distribution mechanisms."​

No other Displacement Boundary Conditions are mentioned, and since they explicitly state those for the bottom and the top of the 16-story assembly, I am sure you will agree with what I implied initially: the 16-story FEA model DOES reflect the deformations and displacements in all directions that reality necessarily must have seen - on all floors except the very top and the very bottom. It would help your credibility to admit that the model does indeed reflect movement of all nodes on all the relevant floors (5-13 at least) in all spatial directions. If you go on denying or ignoring this FACT, this would serve to further undermine your credibility.
Click to expand...
 
Spanx said:
It looks like it's time for you to step into the real world and do something about it.

The only trouble is, as soon as your name is mentioned (googled) you come across every crack pot site going including this 911 conspiracy sub forum.

What do you honestly think you are achieving ?
Click to expand...

He is achieving his 15 minutes of fame among the < .05% of professionals that are members of the Cult of the Dicky Gage Vacation Club. :rolleyes:
 
Ziggi said:
Oystein, what non-sense. The alleged 6.25 inch expansion is caused by the fires. You are parroting a claim from pgimeno about column displacement east even though he had to admit that NIST never made that claim. What are trying to say about end plates - stiffeners? Are you confusing the two?

Parroting empty declarations is not a proper response. If you cannot address the argument, either say so or don´t say anything.
Click to expand...


He is addressing the argument. More empty bluster and had waving. :rolleyes:
 
Hey, Ziggi, in your Grand Entrance speech, you said you had some questions, and question #1 was, what does NIST say caused the collapse. That game seems to be played out, to say the least, so is there any chance of moving on to question #2, or are you finished?
 
Ziggi said:
Oystein, what non-sense. The alleged 6.25 inch expansion is caused by the fires. You are parroting a claim from pgimeno about column displacement east even though he had to admit that NIST never made that claim. What are trying to say about end plates - stiffeners? Are you confusing the two?

Parroting empty declarations is not a proper response. If you cannot address the argument, either say so or don´t say anything.
Click to expand...
Straw man the computer calculates on a percentimeter basis steel expansion,
For all elements of the structure.
The column height rises as the beams and girder itself expand.
Lifting the girder at an angle decreasing walk off distance.
It is a nonlinear equation built into the program governed by the experimental data,
If you had known that you would not appear so foolish it is established engineering
Knowledge.
NIST does not have to explain it it is a known quantity to any engineers using the
Program, which is NIST target audience.
 
Last edited:
Crazy Chainsaw said:
Straw man the computer calculates on a percentimeter basis steel expansion,
For all elements of the structure.
The column height rises as the beams and girder itself expand.
Lifting the girder at an angle decreasing walk off distance.
It is a nonlinear equation built into the program governed by the experimental data,
If you had known that you would not appear so foolish it is established engineering
Knowledge.
NIST does not have to explain it it is a known quantity to any engineers using the
Program, which is NIST target audience.
Click to expand...

If there was some really wrong with the analysis, there would be plenty of engineers and architects making noise about it. Everyone gets it and accepts it except for the uneducated and those with an agenda.....or looking to have continuous expense paid vacations. :rolleyes:
 
Ziggi said:
You are parroting a claim from pgimeno about column displacement east even though he had to admit that NIST never made that claim.
Click to expand...
pgimeno "had to admit" what? LOL Let me use the search function to look for the most recent instance where pgimeno used the word "east" in connection with column 79.
On Mar 09: "the column displacement to the east in your analysis as NIST said it happened". So pgimeno did NOT admit that NIST never made that claim, and the opposite is true: pgimeno still maintains that NIST DOES make that claim - that col 79 displaced east! You lied, didn't you, Ziggi?

Now - does NIST make that claim? Oh look - page 504 of NCSTAR 1-9! While discussing "Building Response at 4.0 h" in the 16-story ANSYS model in Section 11.3.2 "Analysis of Building Response for Case B Temperatures":
"Floors 10, 11, and 12. On Floors 10, 11, and 12 (Figure 11–32, Figure 11–33, and Figure 11–34), the girder between Columns 76 and 79 failed due to a tensile weld failure in the knife connection on the west side of Column 79. Temperatures in this region were less than 100 °C on these floors. The tensile force in the connection was due to an eastward lateral displacement of Column 79, which was primarily caused by thermal expansion of the girder between Column 76 and Column 79 at Floor 13."​
Wow - you say "that NIST never made that claim", but NIST DOES make that claim! You lied, didn't you, Ziggi?

Ziggi said:
If you cannot address the argument, either say so or don´t say anything.
Click to expand...
This coming from you? LOL
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom