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

[gerrycan]

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

NIST originally said that a shift of 5.5" was required. They changed this to 6.25". If you do not see the connection between this change and the seat width being 12" instead of 11" you need to go and read the erratum.

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

No-one is talking about reading minds here. We are talking about reading structural drawings, specifically 9114, and E12/13.
You do not have to deal with my inability to read minds. You need to address NISTs inability/unwillingness to read structural drawings.
Sorry, I forgot. You don't need to do anything do you?

 

[Spanx]

NIST originally said that a shift of 5.5" was required. They changed this to 6.25". If you do not see the connection between this change and the seat width being 12" instead of 11" you need to go and read the erratum.





No-one is talking about reading minds here. We are talking about reading structural drawings, specifically 9114, and E12/13.
You do not have to deal with my inability to read minds. You need to address NISTs inability/unwillingness to read structural drawings.
Sorry, I forgot. You don't need to do anything do you?

With all these important issues it makes me wonder why gerrycan and C7 are commenting on Jref ?

 

[DGM]

NIST originally said that a shift of 5.5" was required. They changed this to 6.25". If you do not see the connection between this change and the seat width being 12" instead of 11" you need to go and read the erratum.

So they didn't say what you claimed.

No-one is talking about reading minds here. We are talking about reading structural drawings, specifically 9114, and E12/13.
You do not have to deal with my inability to read minds. You need to address NISTs inability/unwillingness to read structural drawings.
Sorry, I forgot. You don't need to do anything do you?

I don't because you have not shown this detail matters to the big picture. Why don't you get that bunch of lazy engineers you got to actually prove it matters?

You need to stop trying to show NIST likely case wrong and produce one that's better.

 

[gerrycan]

So they didn't say what you claimed.

Read the erratum. If you do not connect the seat width with the extra 3/4" that they found, I cannot help you.

I don't because you have not shown this detail matters to the big picture. Why don't you get that bunch of lazy engineers you got to actually prove it matters?

What bunch of lazy engineers? It's me you are debating, not ae911.
Also, you need to read the erratum which deals with the seat width and the extended walk off assertion that resulted from the extra width.

You need to stop trying to show NIST likely case wrong and produce one that's better.

I don't need to do anything.
We are talking about NISTs analysis, no-one elses.

 

[beachnut]

... You do not have to deal with my inability to read minds. You need to address NISTs inability/unwillingness to read structural drawings.
Sorry, I forgot. You don't need to do anything do you?

Fire did it. Does the stuff you know change the big picture. No, you might think it does, but nothing you can make up now, or uncover now can change fire was the cause.

911 truth has the insanity of thermite, made up by a old man who is not working on backing in horses in the Americas. Do your findings fix this insane claim? No
911 truth has silent explosives, which don't have blast effects. Does your finding fix this lie?
911 truth has no evidence for CD. Does your work help this fantasy? No.

What is your point?

William Pepper is not qualified to do more than repeat lies and fantasies from 911 truth.

 

[DGM]

You seem to be disagreeing with both sides of the debate here. Our analysis and also NISTs.

Truth of the matter is, I don't need the NIST model to be correct. I could go with the one JSO suggests (although we differ on the fire progression).

One thing I know. Column 79 failed. The exact progression is not that important.

One thing is crystal clear. There is no evidence of explosive demolition.

 

[DGM]

It's me you are debating

Why do you guys always assume there's a debate?

You guys are talking and no one is listening. There's a good reason for this. You have no real theory and you back it up by attempting to prove some detail wrong.

Get to work and make a case to support your theory (after you come up with one). I will actually listen to it.

 

[gerrycan]

Truth of the matter is, I don't need the NIST model to be correct.

That's good, because it clearly isn't.

I could go with the one JSO suggests (although we differ on the fire progression).

YOu could yes, but we are talking about the veracity of NISTs hypothesis, not JSO's, yours, or mine.

One thing I know. Column 79 failed. The exact progression is not that important.

Clearly it did yes, as did all the others. The question is what initiated the failure and global collapse. NIST made some very specific statements as regards this, which have been proven to be erroneous at best.

One thing is crystal clear. There is no evidence of explosive demolition.

I never said there was. We are talking about NISTs stated hypothesis for the initiation of collapse. You seem hesitant to agree with it. I applaud that.

 

[Christopher7]

"It has been alleged that NIST is wrong on an insignificant detail but the allegation has not been proven."

It is a fact that NIST omitted the web/flange stiffeners, not an allegation. NIST admitted that they were omitted.
http://911blogger.com/news/2013-11-06/nist-replies-stiffeners-inquiry

You will agree with their reasoning that the web did not cripple so they did not need to include them. This ignores the fact that they would have prevented the flange from folding as is required for their walk-off hypothesis to work.

This "detail", as you call it, proves that their collapse hypothesis is fraudulent. Willfully omitting a structural element that prevents their collapse from beginning is fraud.

 

[DGM]

That's good, because it clearly isn't.

YOu could yes, but we are talking about the veracity of NISTs hypothesis, not JSO's, yours, or mine.


Clearly it did yes, as did all the others. The question is what initiated the failure and global collapse. NIST made some very specific statements as regards this, which have been proven to be erroneous at best.



I never said there was. We are talking about NISTs stated hypothesis for the initiation of collapse. You seem hesitant to agree with it. I applaud that.

So if you prove NIST wrong it still does nothing for your case. I'm not married to the NIST model.

This we need a new investigation has gotten old. There's no reason you could not have done one by now.

 

[DGM]

.

This "detail", as you call it, proves that their collapse hypothesis is fraudulent. Willfully omitting a structural element that prevents their collapse from beginning is fraud.

Nope. You proving that it matters would make their hypothesis wrong. Nothing more.

You are assuming they did this on purpose.(the fatal flaw in your logic)

 

[Spanx]

This "detail", as you call it, proves that their collapse hypothesis is fraudulent. Willfully omitting a structural element that prevents their collapse from beginning is fraud.

It's a good job that you caught them out Chris

 

[gerrycan]

So if you prove NIST wrong it still does nothing for your case.

So you do not think that disproving NISTs hypothesis for this collapse should help to facilitate the search for one that makes sense? Personally, I feel that it is important to find out just exactly why the building failed in order to help make such buildings safer in the future.
There is no longer an "if" about the veracity of NISTs report as regards their supposed initiating event.

I'm not married to the NIST model.

Me neither, and I could think of far more sensible and better looking models that I would marry before theirs.

This we need a new investigation has gotten old.

Yes it has. It took 2 months from the release of the drawings for these errors and omissions to be discovered. What had gotten old was NISTs refusal to release them, and now we can see why.

There's no reason you could not have done one by now.

I think that under 2 months from the release of the drawings was pretty quick to gather this evidence. NIST on the other hand had 7 years between the event and the release of their report to spot these elements and address the consequences of them to their analysis.

 

[JSanderO]

I too find this obsession with showing NIST's explanation wrong get us nowhere. Let's say they ARE wrong. What then?

Presumably they will either adjust the inputs... because think they were ASSUMED not real time measurements. Or they will find another model to lead to the failure 79. And there are problem several ways that 79 could fail.

DGM, Ozzie and others have said.. forget NIST... what is YOUR explanation in some level of detail to account for the observed movements. The simply claim of "CD" doesn't fly.

If you can explain the collapse of 7... I'd like to read it.

 

[DGM]

I think that under 2 months from the release of the drawings was pretty quick to gather this evidence. NIST on the other hand had 7 years between the event and the release of their report to spot these elements and address the consequences of them to their analysis.

You've only wanted a new investigation for two months?

What's stopping you guys from doing an investigation? You have all the engineers you could ever want. The technical data for the buildings are well known.

Stop just trying to prove some one wrong and do something constructive. Maybe then the engineering community might listen.

Just so you know. NIST doesn't need their model either.

 

[DGM]

So you do not think that disproving NISTs hypothesis for this collapse should help to facilitate the search for one that makes sense? Personally, I feel that it is important to find out just exactly why the building failed in order to help make such buildings safer in the future.

Like I said. What's stopping you?

I doubt we will ever be able to track every detail but, the over-all is all we really need.

Are you really trying to claim that the purpose of all your work is to make buildings safer? I don't buy it. I can tell you how to make them safer but, no one could afford to build them (see the new WTC1).

 

[gerrycan]

You've only wanted a new investigation for two months?

With the release of the drawings, the call for a new investigation became validated in the sense that NIST made serious errors and omissions in the very part of the building that they should have looked at closest, and these omissions could be proven by the evidence that they themselves released.

What's stopping you guys from doing an investigation?

Nothing, we have. We investigated the validity of NISTs hypothesis within 2 months of the drawings becoming available to us and found it to be seriously flawed.

You have all the engineers you could ever want.

No 'we' don't. Exactly who do you mean by 'we'.
To be clear, 'we' are not ae911 truth. ae911 have and continue to support the advancement of this issue as they rightly should. If you want to talk to ae911, go and do that. Right now you are talking to me.

The technical data for the buildings are well known.

As are the serious errors and omissions that NIST made since the release of same. These should be addressed.

Stop just trying to prove some one wrong and do something constructive.

We have proved NIST wrong - they now need to do something constructive, specifically, putting forth an explanation for the initiation of collapse of WTC7 that makes sense.

Maybe then the engineering community might listen.

They might well do so. How do you know they are not? The world does not end at the US border and neither do the ramifications of this event, or the will to move toward better building safety as a result of good and proper investigation of building collapses such as WTC7.

Just so you know. NIST doesn't need their model either.

What model specifically do they not need?

 

[gerrycan]

Are you really trying to claim that the purpose of all your work is to make buildings safer? I don't buy it.

You shouldn't try to read people's minds.

 

[DGM]

What model specifically do they not need?

The one you are spending all this time trying to disprove.

 

[DGM]

You shouldn't try to read people's minds.

I'm just reading the OP. (I know it's not you)

What's your hypothesis?