William Pepper's Letter to DoC re: NIST on WTC7

[ozeco41]

7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Makes a claim about omitted details. The details are technically of little if any consequence.

So you don't think that the stiffener plates would extend the required walk off distance for the girder to fail for example?

Actually I think you are asking the wrong question and possibly in the wrong place.

You quoted part of my comment and left out the key section which was this:

.... The issue has been extensively discussed here on JREF BUT with truther side using false context assumptions and most debunkers ignoring context and arguing details. Me and a couple of others calling "foul".

From my perspective that has been the key problem - BOTH SIDES working from bad assumptions about the technical context AND focusing on details. It has been a classic "lose the plot" situation - call it "forests v trees" OR "alligators and swamps" whichever metaphor you prefer:

All the discussions have taken a micro focus on the details of the beams/girders and their end details WITHOUT giving due recognition to the overall technical context. For example much of the discussion focused on expansion or sideways movements of the walk-off girder whilst presuming the the supporting columns remained in their pristine condition locations to within fractions of an inch. So temperature expansions of beams/girders could be calculated to fractions of an inch presuming nothing else moved.

IMO that is crazy stuff in a building ravaged by fires.

My call - ignored by effectively all the combatants - was that the assumption was unwarranted and, absent proof that no movement of the columns was valid, the assumption MUST be that the columns had moved. THEREFORE all the fractions of an inch stuff was invalid. That is the status and I'm not particularly interested in going back into the morass. But my objective posting in this thread was to advise - explain - for egalicontrarian - in response to his request.

I disagree.

Noted. I also note that you are also focused in the details without defining the technical context.

The failure of the girder was quoted by NIST as being the initiating event of failure.

Yes - hardly the smartest bit of explanation by NIST. How anyone can claim that Col 79 "initiated" is beyond me. There is a whole thread dedicated to discussion of the place/part played by 79. It was without doubt a "key element in the collapse" but no way did it "initiate".

The erratum that they released changing the distance required from 5.5" to 6.25" never gave an explanation of where they got the extra 3/4" from. The maximum is 5.5", perhaps that's why.

Details bereft of context PLUS I'm agnostic on NIST. I never rely on NIST reasoning.

So you do not think that the inclusion of the stiffener plates would extend the ability of the girder to be pushed to the west without failing? Please explain that.

As I said several times in the referenced post - it is a detail. I'm not satisfied that the details are in a proper context. So it is pointless me forming opinions about the details....before we agree on the context for said details.

There is a lengthy thread or two on Girder Walkoff [Links needed????] and if you are interested in the Col 79 Initiation issue some useful comments among a lot of nonsense in the thread Total Building Collapse from a Single Column Failure

 

[JSanderO]

As I said several times in the referenced post - it is a detail. I'm not satisfied that the details are in a proper context. So it is pointless me forming opinions about the details....before we agree on the context for said details.

This statement really gets to the heart of how absurd so much of these "how it happened" discussions are ESPECIALLY when the author/argument attempts to drill down and point to a specific detail/event/location as THE initiation of the global collapse.

Of course most truthers don't even consider that there was a global COLLAPSE.. and such a collapse is not even POSSIBLE without intervention according their beliefs.

It is clearly IMPOSSIBLE to model or "reverse" engineer the collapse back to a single event/location/ failure etc. Complexity and lack of data make this impossible.

NIST, for some reason attempted to DETAIL the proximate single event/location/ failure and in so doing sewed their fate and became a target for all manner of criticism from incompetence to malfeasance. It was a fool's errand to produce THAT sort of report and it is a fool's errand to critique it as the letter to NIST does. Both sides who look for details like this are simply showing stupidity.

NIST, I believe did not make a declarative statement that their (stupid) explanation for initiations was THE one and only possible one. They set forth a (stupid) model which then set them up for (deserved IMSHO) ridicule and criticism.

What they should have perhaps done is present how PROGRESSIVE failures work their way (rapidly and at a increasing rate of failures) through complex (structural in this case) systems... identifying all sorts of various ways structural systems progress and overwhelm the entire structure. General discussion... maybe even examples how frame components can and do fail.

Instead they went out on a limb with their silly models which became easy targets to take down for anyone who could think clearly. NIST WAS almost 100% correct that there was no evidence to support placed devices, but they of course were not attempting to PROVE there weren't devices. Why should they?

This effort by Gerry's group will fail and at best get NIST to simply say that their model was simply a look at one possibility which could lead to global collapse by causing failures progressing to the load transfer structures which were inevitably part of the global collapse. They may be forced to state they simply didn't have the evidence, data or computing power to literally model something of such enormous complexity and the details may be unknowable. People thought NIST could explain it and so they came up with a crappy explanation(s).

What then?

 

[Redwood]

It is part of the historical record that WTC 7 suffered from massive unfought fires, it was observed to be structurally unstable, and that a collapse zone was established around it, which meant halting search and rescue operations around it.

Nobody at the scene objected to this or expressed any shock or surprise when Seven fell. This means that any investigation into its fall is merely a forensic engineering effort into determining how fire and impact caused it to fail.

Anyone wishing to prove surreptitious demolition has a big mountain to climb. They won't get anywhere quibbling over engineering reports.

 

[ozeco41]

It is part of the historical record that WTC 7 suffered from massive unfought fires, it was observed to be structurally unstable, and that a collapse zone was established around it, which meant halting search and rescue operations around it.

Nobody at the scene objected to this or expressed any shock or surprise when Seven fell. This means that any investigation into its fall is merely a forensic engineering effort into determining how fire and impact caused it to fail.

Anyone wishing to prove surreptitious demolition has a big mountain to climb. They won't get anywhere quibbling over engineering reports.

A concise summary.

 

[gmanontario]

Doesn't everyone want to be a pepper?

/Very old teevee commercial reference

 

[jaydeehess]

It is part of the historical record that WTC 7 suffered from massive unfought fires, it was observed to be structurally unstable, and that a collapse zone was established around it, which meant halting search and rescue operations around it.

Nobody at the scene objected to this or expressed any shock or surprise when Seven fell. This means that any investigation into its fall is merely a forensic engineering effort into determining how fire and impact caused it to fail.

Anyone wishing to prove surreptitious demolition has a big mountain to climb. They won't get anywhere quibbling over engineering reports.

As ozeco said, consise summary.
Want to know where the dishonesty crew will attack it?

Nobody at the scene objected to this

Of course many FFs wanted to continue the SAR effort since their buddies were under the rubble. But truthers, I predict, would misappropriate that motive and try to state, if they think of it at all, a possibility which ozeco will likely see as remote given their proven inability in that department, that the FFs wanting to continue searching believed that there was no danger of a WTC7 collapse.

 

[JSanderO]

It is part of the historical record that WTC 7 suffered from massive unfought fires, it was observed to be structurally unstable, and that a collapse zone was established around it, which meant halting search and rescue operations around it.

Nobody at the scene objected to this or expressed any shock or surprise when Seven fell. This means that any investigation into its fall is merely a forensic engineering effort into determining how fire and impact caused it to fail.

Anyone wishing to prove surreptitious demolition has a big mountain to climb. They won't get anywhere quibbling over engineering reports.

But truthers will claim this is because the were hiding the guys doing the CD... clear the area of probing eyes... There's always a spin!

Loving the spin I'm in.....

 

[jaydeehess]

But truthers will claim this is because the were hiding the guys doing the CD... clear the area of probing eyes... There's always a spin!

Loving the spin I'm in.....

So let's spin it .... The area was cleared so that a couple of small explosives could be placed on connections on TT1............

 

[beachnut]

Here is the letter:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2014JanLetterPepper.pdf

... *By "it" I mean the specific claims and arguments in Pepper's letter. ...

This statement by William Pepper, expose another idiot claim for CD.

... the symmetrical, complete collapse of a large, ...

Why does 911 truth expose their ignorance saying symmetrical? Are they idiots.

WTC 7 penthouse collapsed into WTC7 due to internal failures, making the term symmetrical silly. William Francis Pepper is a barrister who can't figure out 911 and is not qualified to do more than repeat lies from 911 truth.

 

[ozeco41]

So let's spin it .... The area was cleared so that a couple of small explosives could be placed on connections on TT1............

Nah....it was both Col 79 and the 79-44 girder.

 

[Christopher7]

Facts:

NIST incorrectly stated that the seat was 11 inches wide when the drawing clearly said it was 1 foot 0 inches wide - that is fraud.

NIST omitted the web/flange stiffeners that would have prevented the flange from failing as is required in their collapse hypothesis - that is fraud.

The NIST report does NOT explain how WTC 7 collapsed.

 

[beachnut]

Facts:

NIST incorrectly stated that the seat was 11 inches wide when the drawing clearly said it was 1 foot 0 inches wide - that is fraud.

NIST omitted the web/flange stiffeners that would have prevented the flange from failing as is required in their collapse hypothesis - that is fraud.

The NIST report does NOT explain how WTC 7 collapsed.

Pepper has no expertise and he said symmetrical, which is a lie and proves he is an idiot on structural engineering. You are off topic and you have failed for 12 years to present evidence, and ruin PB by supporting woo.

The only fraud related to 911 is 911 truth lies and fantasy. Pepper failed to make a point, the same as all 911 truth claims. 12 years of failure.

911 truth followers think fraud claims of 911 truth are facts.

 

[ozeco41]

Facts:

NIST incorrectly stated that the seat was 11 inches wide when the drawing clearly said it was 1 foot 0 inches wide - that is fraud.

NIST omitted the web/flange stiffeners that would have prevented the flange from failing as is required in their collapse hypothesis - that is fraud.

The NIST report does NOT explain how WTC 7 collapsed.

Hi stranger. Still up to your nonsense?

Of your alleged facts:

NIST incorrectly stated that the seat was 11 inches wide when the drawing clearly said it was 1 foot 0 inches wide

True technical fact. It is called "mistake" - and a mistake which has no consequence THEREFORE

that is fraud.

No point calling on you to prove that legal claim because it is a fact of no consequence. Unless the relevant US law has shifted fundamentally from its common law tradition that is true in both civil and criminal jurisdictions. AND who is "damaged" to sue in civil AND/OR who is going to lay charges in criminal?

NIST omitted the web/flange stiffeners...

which have not been shown to be of any significance

that would have prevented the flange from failing..

That assertion is unproven. I'm sure it is false but I'm not wasting time trying to disprove it (i.e. show that your claim is false) since the burden of proof lies on your side and you don't seem to have any engineers good enough to even analyse the situation. Even if you did have some competent ones there is nothing to find.

as is required in their collapse hypothesis -

It is only a detail and the main features of the NIST explanation are not affected.

that is fraud.

That is just as silly as it was the first time.

The NIST report does NOT explain how WTC 7 collapsed.

False claim - false global or false generalisation to be specific. The report does explain - the fact that you don't like a couple of details does not make the rest of the report wrong. Some details may be inaccurate. No one has proved details wrong. Even if they did it is of no consequence. Certainly not enough to justify ridiculous claims for more investigation.

 

[Christopher7]

NIST incorrectly stated that the seat was 11 inches wide when the drawing clearly said it was 1 foot 0 inches wide - that is fraud.

Of your alleged facts:
True technical fact. It is called "mistake" - and a mistake which has no consequence

It was clearly not an unintentional mistake. No one could "mistake" 1 foot 0 inches for 0 feet 11 inches. And it did have a critical consequence.

NIST says that the floor beams in the NE corner of the 13th floor did not exceed 600C. Table 10-1 NCSTAR 1-9 Vol. 2 p. 455.

The average CTE of steel from room temperature to 1,112 degrees F (600 degrees C) is about 8.2 x 10e-06 in/in-deg F. Applied over a 640 inch long beam the expansion for the 1,042 degrees delta temperature is 5.5 inches. This is why the NIST made the seat 11 inches long.

NIST omitted the web/flange stiffeners that would have prevented the flange from failing as is required in their collapse hypothesis - that is fraud

which have not been shown to be of any significance - That assertion is unproven.

The flange folding when the girder was pushed 5.5 inches in the crux if their hypothesis. If the flange does not fold at that point, the collapse does not happen.

[FONT=&quot]"[/FONT]when the web was no longer supported by the bearing seat, the beam was assumed to have lost support, as the flexural stiffness of the bottom flange was assumed to be insufficient for transferring the gravity loads. Under such conditions, the beam would fall to the floor below under its self weight." NCSTAR 1-9 Vol. 2 p. 488 [pdf p. 150]

"A girder was considered to have lost vertical support when its web was no longer supported by the bearing seat. The bearing seat at Column 79 was 11 in. wide. Thus, when the girder end at Column 79 had been pushed laterally at least 5.5 in., it was no longer supported by the bearing seat." NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 p. 527 [pdf p. 189]

 

[DGM]

"A girder was considered to have lost vertical support when its web was no longer supported by the bearing seat. The bearing seat at Column 79 was 11 in. wide. Thus, when the girder end at Column 79 had been pushed laterally at least 5.5 in., it was no longer supported by the bearing seat." NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 p. 527 [pdf p. 189]

Question. Why do they make the bearing seat so wide if only a fraction of an inch is needed for support?

 

[thedopefishlives]

Hey look, it's MSPaintFire time again! Ah, memories.

 

[ozeco41]

It was clearly not an unintentional mistake. No one could "mistake" 1 foot 0 inches for 0 feet 11 inches. And it did have a critical consequence.

NIST says that the floor beams in the NE corner of the 13th floor did not exceed 600C. Table 10-1 NCSTAR 1-9 Vol. 2 p. 455.

The average CTE of steel from room temperature to 1,112 degrees F (600 degrees C) is about 8.2 x 10e-06 in/in-deg F. Applied over a 640 inch long beam the expansion for the 1,042 degrees delta temperature is 5.5 inches. This is why the NIST made the seat 11 inches long.


The flange folding when the girder was pushed 5.5 inches in the crux if their hypothesis. If the flange does not fold at that point, the collapse does not happen.

[FONT=&quot]"[/FONT]when the web was no longer supported by the bearing seat, the beam was assumed to have lost support, as the flexural stiffness of the bottom flange was assumed to be insufficient for transferring the gravity loads. Under such conditions, the beam would fall to the floor below under its self weight." NCSTAR 1-9 Vol. 2 p. 488 [pdf p. 150]

"A girder was considered to have lost vertical support when its web was no longer supported by the bearing seat. The bearing seat at Column 79 was 11 in. wide. Thus, when the girder end at Column 79 had been pushed laterally at least 5.5 in., it was no longer supported by the bearing seat." NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 p. 527 [pdf p. 189]

All this details nonsense was discussed interminably with many people making the same errors you are now repeating. Both sides - truthers and debunkers got it wrong for the same reasons.

You are wrong now just as Szamboti and quite few debunkers were wrong on those previous occasions. The debunkers involved no better at the engineering or logic than T Sz.

I'm sure others will choose to feed your repetition of the nonsense. I wont. Go do your homework.

Cheers.

 

[jaydeehess]

Question. Why do they make the bearing seat so wide if only a fraction of an inch is needed for support?

That's a very good question. I would like the resident NIST expert, Christopher 7 , to address this. After all, this structure was in far from pristine shape and although it was in a far from normal situation in the situation of heating the steel. Both flange and seat could be expected to be hot. Is a fraction of the flange's normal width really expected to be enough to support the load?

 

[jaydeehess]

Facts:

NIST incorrectly stated that the seat was 11 inches wide when the drawing clearly said it was 1 foot 0 inches wide - that is fraud.

NIST omitted the web/flange stiffeners that would have prevented the flange from failing as is required in their collapse hypothesis - that is fraud.

The NIST report does NOT explain how WTC 7 collapsed.

,,,,,and AT BEST, you have managed to prove NIST wrong for their scenario.

Fantastic! Now how about proving an alternative scenario....... nahhhh, AE911T has never bothered to attempt that!

BTW, why, given the brain trust of A&E, are they having a carpenter do their research for them? Is that supposed to garner support in the technical arena?

 

[JSanderO]

Question. Why do they make the bearing seat so wide if only a fraction of an inch is needed for support?

you're jesting of course.