The technical aspects of this long discussion are over my head, but when I put aside the insults, here is what I think I get from it. I knew that Ziggi's initial question about NIST's theory was going to end with Ziggi showing that the walkoff couldn't have resulted in global collapse in the way NIST said because they showed no evidence (and they have not been able to show enough expansion in their own models). Otherwise, he would not have asked.
In NISTs theory, if there's no walk off there's no collapse. They've failed to show a valid initiating event. Any discussion on NISTs analysis of the collapse will of course gravitate toward whether their theory is possible.
There are several people here on both sides who know way more than I do about the technical side of this subject: MM, Ziggi, Tony, gerrycan, JSanderO, pgimeno, Oystein, to name a few. Our opponents have certainly put a lot of time and energy into researching the NIST Report, and I credit them for finding issues I would never have had the technical skills to notice.
I think that you do clearly have enough of a technical awareness to understand the issues though, as they are presented. It's quite clear that what NIST are claiming could not have happened the way that they suppose, and whilst I welcome the scrutiny of the claims being made by myself and others there does come a time when the issues with the specifics of NIST's claimed initiating event mount up to the point that their theory collapses.
Bottom line, it seems to me that Oystein and others are arguing that the NIST collapse initiation model is by necessity simplified, assuming for example that certain parts of the building were unmoving during the fire.
That would be fine if those simplifications were taken into account especially around the initiating event, but they're not. How they managed to get 5.5" displacement to the west in the beam (k3004) is a mystery in itself, given that they must have looked at the C38 connection at the other end of it and known there was rougly an inch of expansion there. That means that in essence they were originally claiming 6.5" of expansion before they fessed up to getting what might be the 2 most important numbers in the whole analysis the wrong way round in their draft and final reports.
CTBUH also points out that the walkoff could be better explained by some combination of thermal expansion followed by thermal contraction (which is not in the NIST model) and other factors they noted which NIST did not account for in their model. Being one inch off in NIST's estimates can be accounted for by the chaos of an unfought fire and factors that were not fed into the model.
Yes, the CTBUH blame the floor system failures.
This is not about NIST or anyone being 1" out. It's more like them being out by 4 or 5 inches, and that is no triviality especially when every issue that has arisen from research of their analysis makes their supposed initiating event less plausible.
In the words of Norman Mineta, "as you see one thing happen, that's an accident. When you see two of the same thing occur, it's a pattern. But when you see three of the same thing occur, it's a program."
JSanderO seems to go a step further and suggest some other collapse mechanism may be at play.
Indeed he does.
Tony jumps all the way to concluding that we need a new investigation
We do. The old one's not got a possible initiating event in it.
because the NIST Report is fatally flawed.
It is.
So there are two questions: is Tony right that NIST put out a deeply inaccurate report and we need to start over again? Again, I can't go into the technical issues deeply, I can only review the conclusions of people with more technical knowledge. I do know that Purdue, Hawaii, CTBUH and countless other university students have indeed studied the NIST Report. It's a standard study tool in technical classes all over the world. Rebellious young bucks everywhere pore over it (it's a cool way to teach students about the principles of physics, architecture, engineering, etc) and I'm sure many of them would love to find a way to find fault with their elders. Outside of 9/11 Truth, I have not heard any MAJOR critiques, just the pointing out of relatively minor differences.
Anybody with a major critique of the NIST report into WTC7 would immediately be considered inside of 911 truth.
From what I can see, people here are joined by 99% of the technical world in agreeing with the major points of the NIST Report.
It's fallacy to claim a huge % of those in the technical world agree with you by way of their acquiescence.
So the second question is, do Tony, gerrycan, MM, Ziggi and others see fatal flaws where the rest of the world sees simplified models and minor inaccuracies?
If a hypothesis is impossible it should be discarded. You are trying to minimise the issue with the term "minor inaccuracies", when in fact the truth is that the analysis is inaccurate as you stated.
My long arguments with Chris Sarns about the fires in Building 7 came down to this question of perspective as well. The videos of Building 7 burning did not match the NIST model for which floors were burning when. Sarns said, clearly this is fraud. It seems to me that the extraordinary analysis with a fine-toothed comb of the NIST Report could turn up a fatal flaw, but I am not convinced that this is what Tony et al have unearthed.
Nobody here is disagreeing what the temperatures were in the model though. The scrutiny of NIST's analysis has turned up a fatal flaw with the initiating event. It can't happen the way that they are claiming.
I realize I have very little to add to the technical side of this discussion.
Not at all, jump right in. After all, it didn't stop the others of your ilk.
I wonder if my little "perspective" summary seems reasonably accurate.
It seems reasonably put.
