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

[DGM]

you're jesting of course.

He does seem to suggest that this fraction of an inch is important. I wonder why.

 

[jaydeehess]

you're jesting of course.

At least when you go about proving NIST wrong in their "most probable scenario", you then go on to propose, in some detail, an alternative that is consistent with observed manner of collapse.

Still waiting for Chris 7 or AE911T to do that.

 

[ozeco41]

He is focused on "little picture" details and there are two major "bigger picture" errors in his claim:

1) The real big picture is that we know:
---EPH fell
---therefore Col 79 and all its related structures had failed
---Therefore the main aspects of NIST's claim are correct
---Even if the detail of initiation by girder walk-off is wrong
PLUS that means
---Girder did fail wherever said failure fitted in the sequencing and causality.
SO his global claim "NIST was wrong" is false. At most NIST was in error on a detail that has no effect on the key features of the bigger picture AND the claims of "fraud" are ludicrous.

AND

2 A "medium level picture" aspect
---all the inches and fractions of inches calculations presume that the other parts of structure are in pristine condition and their original locations.
---the first bit of stupidity IMO being the assumption that the distance between the two columns was completely unaffected by heat.
---WHILST the girder was expanding and contracting with temperature change.
---That is the point I relied on back in the previous debates when I claimed that Szamboti had not made his case - which is the same case C7 is now recycling.
---I never tried to disprove T Sz - merely showed that his claim was "not made out" - which was too subtle for most members.
---A number of "debunkers" were enjoying proving Tony wrong in sums and FEA - whilst merrily accepting his unproven assumption.
---So both sides ignored me - causing me loss of sleep and sever depression - not
---The only member who posted anything that accepted my point was enik. And he disagreed that he was agreeing with me - till I sorted him out on another forum.
---There were other "false assumptions of technical context" - I've only posted that one as an example - it even stand alone that one is fatal to the claim.

 

[Christopher7]

At least when you go about proving NIST wrong in their "most probable scenario", you then go on to propose, in some detail, an alternative that is consistent with observed manner of collapse.

Still waiting for Chris 7 or AE911T to do that.

I guess that's as close to an admission that the NIST collapse hypothesis is wrong as I can expect to get on this forum.

An alternative theory has been offered (and you know it) but the point I have made on this thread is that NIST committed fraud and their collapse theory is invalid.

ozeco41 ignored the facts and used the "talk it to death" denial tactic. I don't expect a relevant answer from him.

 

[DGM]

An alternative theory has been offered (and you know it) but the point I have made on this thread is that NIST committed fraud and their collapse theory is invalid.

Just saying controlled demolition is not really presenting a theory.

Tell us why the stiffeners (and extra inch) would have made all the difference again?

 

[jaydeehess]

I guess that's as close to an admission that the NIST collapse hypothesis is wrong as I can expect to get on this forum.

What? where did I say that? I said that at least JSO, when he goes about his prove-NIST-wrong, he then counters with a detailed counter. You don't.

An alternative theory has been offered (and you know it) but the point I have made on this thread is that NIST committed fraud and their collapse theory is invalid.

If you mean the laughably simplistic and woefully undetailed "controlled demolition" of some sort, by someone, using something. Yeah, I am aware of that one.

I am also aware that you are very quick to assign nefarious and malicious intent to semantic differences , and simple error. Hell, you even accused NIST of nefarious intent for including topics in interim reports which they later rejected.

 

[ozeco41]

I guess that's as close to an admission that the NIST collapse hypothesis is wrong as I can expect to get on this forum.

True - and your ambiguity and inference noted. For the record the status is "It has been alleged that NIST is wrong on an insignificant detail but the allegation has not been proven." Further allegations including allegations of fraud are without standing or foundation.

An alternative theory has been offered (and you know it) but the point I have made on this thread is that NIST committed fraud and their collapse theory is invalid.

There are several plausible differences at that level of insignificant detail. Repeating your silly unsupportable claim of "fraud" will not change reality.

ozeco41 ignored the facts and used the "talk it to death" denial tactic. I don't expect a relevant answer from him.

Your dishonesty in misrepresenting my statements does not change the validity of what I said. I ignore trolling and anyone lying about my posts. The day when any of the nonsense from the charlatans of AE911 gets any consideration from me is long gone. Others are free to play your games. I wont.

If you ever decide to seriously seek the truth ask and I can probably explain any relevant technical issues.

Cheers.

 

[JSanderO]

What? where did I say that? I said that at least JSO, when he goes about his prove-NIST-wrong, he then counters with a detailed counter. You don't.


If you mean the laughably simplistic and woefully undetailed "controlled demolition" of some sort, by someone, using something. Yeah, I am aware of that one.

I am also aware that you are very quick to assign nefarious and malicious intent to semantic differences , and simple error. Hell, you even accused NIST of nefarious intent for including topics in interim reports which they later rejected.

Actually I don't prove anyone right of wrong. I make simple assertions that their scenario is not credible and although 79 went down and when it dit the EPH went with it... I assert that the cause of the collapse of 79 was not the girder walk off but lower down in the load transfer region. And this seems to make more sense to me rather than the collapsing floor mass destroying the load transfer structures.

Which came first? The chicken or the egg?

Fact is that there are no "signs" of CD... and the stupid attempt to detail the precise collapse by NIST was boneheaded and doomed to bring on all manner of criticism which was deserved.

So who cares that they got some details wrong? That hardly proves CD or whatever the truthers are trying to claim... fraud and cover up.

Rubbish.

 

[LSSBB]

I guess that's as close to an admission that the NIST collapse hypothesis is wrong as I can expect to get on this forum.

An alternative theory has been offered (and you know it) but the point I have made on this thread is that NIST committed fraud and their collapse theory is invalid.

ozeco41 ignored the facts and used the "talk it to death" denial tactic. I don't expect a relevant answer from him.

So what would be the effect of the stiffeners in a controlled demolition? Oh wait, your alternative lacks sufficient detail to evaluate it.

Hey, by the way, ever figure out how far deformed all the other structural elements were, to be able to make a pure yes or no decision on whether the error from the drawings was enough to prevent a collapse? Oh wait, no one knows, so it's still possible for the building to collapse under fire.

 

[jaydeehess]

I said that at least JSO, when he goes about his contention about NIST scenario, he then counters with a detailed counter. You don't.


Better, JSO

 

[tsig]

I guess that's as close to an admission that the NIST collapse hypothesis is wrong as I can expect to get on this forum.
An alternative theory has been offered (and you know it) but the point I have made on this thread is that NIST committed fraud and their collapse theory is invalid.

ozeco41 ignored the facts and used the "talk it to death" denial tactic. I don't expect a relevant answer from him.

Somebody did something really isn't a theory.

 

[JSanderO]

I said that at least JSO, when he goes about his contention about NIST scenario, he then counters with a detailed counter. You don't.


Better, JSO

Thank you, but my deals are not especially detailed... certainly not at the level of the NIST explanation. I actually believe that trying to model at that level of detail is a fool's errand. What I present are what appears to me to be logical processes to explain the failures... very much like ROOSD. No one has provided detailed mechanism for ROOSD. It's a sort of conceptual model of how mass can drive through an open office space structure and ultimately undermine the entire thing. ROOSD has a lot of randomness and chaos to it, but ultimate presents as an organized destructive identifiable process which makes perfect sense. Some people want to drill into the details.. such as how precisely is the concrete renders so much sand size and smaller rubble. These are interesting questions and so experts can tackle them. But SEE the gross process and that is undeniable.

My pet theories... TTF and SHTD are not seeable as they occur inside the structure and lead to what we CAN see. SO they can't be proven or dis-proven and for sure we can't know the details of TTF and SHTD. I am satisfied that they make enough sense that I don't personally feel the need to attempt to get to more level of detail... especially in the face of a dearth of data.

I think NIST attempted more than they could do and did not expect the level of scrutiny their "models" would receive. I suspect ultimately NIST, if they respond at all, will state that the collapses were too complex, there was not enough real time data and all they did was try to model POSSIBLE scenarios to satisfy their charge. Why people defend their work as conveying what actually happened is a mystery... and a major distraction.

 

[jaydeehess]

JSO, your proposals are vastly more detailed than anything coming from AE911T

 

[JSanderO]

JSO, your proposals are vastly more detailed than anything coming from AE911T

It's because I try to conceptualize how the collapse could get going... that's always been the key... once you have a huge mass on the move... it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that it will total the building.

 

[pgimeno]

---the first bit of stupidity IMO being the assumption that the distance relative position between the two columns was completely unaffected by heat.

FTFY. The distance between columns (79 and 44, I assume) might be unaffected while still existing lateral movement that would affect the girder's seat. Think radial movement that doesn't affect distance, for example.

Apart from that, great post.

 

[ozeco41]

FTFY. The distance between columns (79 and 44, I assume) might be unaffected while still existing lateral movement that would affect the girder's seat. Think radial movement that doesn't affect distance, for example.

Apart from that, great post.

Well spotted - thanks.

When the "big debate" of this was in "progress" (AKA going round in circles because both sides had lost the plot) I was more careful to cover the options. This time I was only writing a quick summary opposing C7's silly attempt to turn back the clock - he tried to force this new discussion into the same error. Classic and transparent trolling by C7 of course as per DGM's sig - "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

 

[gerrycan]

Just saying controlled demolition is not really presenting a theory.

True. Nists theory is stated quite clearly though, and that is the one which is under scrutiny here, not anyone elses.

Tell us why the stiffeners (and extra inch) would have made all the difference again?

The extra inch seems to have made enough of a difference to NIST to compel them to release their erratum stating that the walk off was in fact 6.25 as opposed to 5.5. If it didn't make a difference, then why did they see fit to release an erratum to explain that?
What NIST, and you need to do is explain where the extra 3/4" came from, because it could not have been thermal expansion. This is something that NIST also stated when they said that above their supposed temperature steel begins to sag.
You seem to be disagreeing with both sides of the debate here. Our analysis and also NISTs.
Also you need to clearly state whether you think that the stiffener plates would or wouldn't increase the walk off distance required for the girder to fail. I'll address that if and when you do so.

 

[DGM]

The extra inch seems to have made enough of a difference to NIST to compel them to release their erratum stating that the walk off was in fact 6.25 as opposed to 5.5. If it didn't make a difference, then why did they see fit to release an erratum to explain that?
What NIST, and you need to do is explain where the extra 3/4" came from, because it could not have been thermal expansion. This is something that NIST also stated when they said that above their supposed temperature steel begins to sag.
You seem to be disagreeing with both sides of the debate here. Our analysis and also NISTs.
Also you need to clearly state whether you think that the stiffener plates would or wouldn't increase the walk off distance required for the girder to fail. I'll address that if and when you do so.

Actually I don't need to do anything.

You are the ones saying it makes a difference. This one detail in the whole scope of things.

Were the members in "as built" condition for your expansion/contraction analysis?

 

[gerrycan]

Actually I don't need to do anything.

True, you don't and you aren't.

You are the ones saying it makes a difference. This one detail in the whole scope of things.

NIST are saying that the extra seat width makes a difference. The difference being 3/4" in the walk off distance required for the girder to fail as opposed to 5.5" which the erroneously had stated previous to their erratum statement.
Just to be clear - NIST recognise the difference that the seat width makes - I recognise this also. You apparently do not. You should clarify this, but then again.... you.....

don't need to do anything.

Handy that eh.

Were the members in "as built" condition for your expansion/contraction analysis?

They were in exactly the same condition as they were in as per NISTs analysis. You need to differentiate between the conditions on the day, and the conditions in NISTs model. We are talking about the latter, not the former. It's a like for like comparison, just with the correct elements included.
Saying that you "don't need to do anything" simply translates to the fact that you can't say anything to support your viewpoint.
You also do not need to reply to this post if you do not want to, or feel unable to. But I would suggest that if you do, you do so with some substance.

 

[DGM]

NIST are saying that the extra seat width makes a difference.

You are inferring this. Where does NIST actually say it does?

Saying that you "don't need to do anything" simply translates to the fact that you can't say anything to support your viewpoint.
You also do not need to reply to this post if you do not want to, or feel unable to. But I would suggest that if you do, you do so with some substance.

You need to stop trying to read peoples minds. What it means is you have not made your case and everyone knows it.