WTC7 - The fires failed Girder 44-79

[ozeco41]

For starters, in response to a request for calculations and analysis substantiating the NIST claim for girder walk-off in their collapse initiation scenario for WTC 7, the NIST director said he was witholding that information claiming it might jeopardize public safety.

Why should a Government Agency which has completed an investigation authorised by statute provide such information to would be political troublemakers who are unable to formulate a prima facie case for review of the completed statutory task?

The issue goes to the concept of governance of a democracy and the political processes of reviewing properly determined findings. And, Tony, it has nothing to do with your unsupported fantasy claims framed in false engineering.

It is an issue of the process of governance and the legal setting for review.

At the very simplest it requires a body of political opinion to call into question the official findings THEN a political decision that a review is warranted. There is nothing extant that even approaches a reasoned prima facie claim of error. Bullcrap on all you like on Internet forums - the test of a prima facie case is para legal in the political arena and none of your debating tricks, evasions, half truths, false logic, pseudo engineering will be of any consequence in the arena of politics.

Sure there is a lot more. For example the claimed errors in the original finding would have to be significant in the political context. That question of "significance" is something that at least two advocates have failed to demonstrate in these forums (You and Major_Tom before you ask.)

Your "claims" are not within a mile of good enough to gain any political support. BTW that would still be true if there was any significant substance to your claims. Ironically the fact that the claims are utter nonsense makes little difference.

 

[BasqueArch]

For starters, the NIST report is non-explanatory. Their collapse initiation mechanism is impossible and their model does not replicate the proven freefall period. That is why I want a new investigation. Failure analyses need to replicate the observables.

If the true believers keep chanting their prayers when facing the enemy, their faith will save them.

This is an example of subjective beliefs chosen over objective knowlege.
You can lead a truther to facts but you can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.- modified Twain or Swift

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so," Twain

 

[BasqueArch]

Misdirection is a form of deception in which the attention of an audience is focused on one thing in order to distract its attention from another. Wiki

TS' misdirection closed the other thread and he is repeating it on this one. I propose a new thread to discuss all of TS' 9/11 claims that can then be addressed without any of Tony's claims being off topic. That way we only have one latrine to clean.
What do you all think.

 

[Sunstealer]

Freefall of a mass can only occur when all of its potential energy is converted to motion and it accelerates at full gravitational acceleration of 9.81 ms^2, with no work being done by the falling mass, such as bending or deforming other structural elements by buckling, crushing etc.

Freefall indicates that the falling mass is not doing any other work.

If the mass is doing other work it can't be in freefall as some of the potential energy is being used to do that work and is not being converted to motion.

If I hold a tennis ball with my arm outstretched and then let it go it falls at 9.81m/s^2. Now imagine if I hold the ball out in the same way but instead of letting go I simply bend my knees and back and accelerate the ball downwards with my arm at 9.81m/s^2.

Now imagine that you are an observer but you can only observe the ball and it's motion not me.

Which scenario is freefall? How can you tell? Remember you can only observe the ball.

 

[000063]

Are you espousing a theory that the full interior had collapsed progressively, first in the vertical on the east side, and then from east to west before any of the exterior, and that the full perimeter of WTC 7 then underwent an 8 story buckle and that it would permit freefall?

Complex question fallacy.

No, you want me to commit to a particular theory and that would be premature....

No, what he actually asked is whether you currently have a theory that you are espousing. You answer what's in front of you instead of speculating about some trap you think you're being led into. And you dodged the question entirely the first time, only to come up with some nonsense reason why when called on it. You think we've never seen that before?

The answer to the question is no. You didn't answer because you don't want to admit you don't have anything, and advancing a theory instead of kvetching about the official story exposes your intellectual flank. There isn't a single plausible conspiracy theory about 7's collapse, which is why you refuse to advance one.

That's the sophistry. Straw man, ad hominem, and outright dodging.

Every engineer I have shown video of WTC 7's collapse to and explained the freefall and that the NIST model does not replicate this freefall has taken the position that it needs to be re-investigated.

The fact that certain organizations haven't taken the initiative to request a re-investigation means nothing.

There are millions of Engies in the world. I'd bet money that you haven't even shown it to a hundred of them. And, of course, you said that you explained that the NIST report was inadequate, not how it was inadequate. I'm betting the video you showed did not include the East Penthouse collapse. Feel free to contradict me. I promise I'll admit I was wrong.

The word was put out early on by an anonymous engineer (who the investigation did not identify) that WTC 7 was in danger of collapse. That would have been all that was necessary to keep firefighters away from the building, especially after what went on earlier that morning on Sept. 11, 2001. I certainly do not believe the FDNY was involved in anything nefarious.

Yet they were crawling all over that section of Manhattan, keeping people away from the building. The building was already on fire by that point (3:30 PM, and by your own argument the building wasn't on fire until at least 12:15 or so), which meant it had to be set while the firefighters were still inside.

After the building was evacuated, just about the only people going in and out were firefighters. So;

1. Devices planted before the attacks, and somehow not noticed by tens of thousands of people or damaged by the 1 falling on it.
2. Devices planted/fires set during the attacks or evac, and the fleeing people didn't notice.
3. Fire set between evac and 1's collapse, because, again, the bad guys somehow knew their people and/or devices would be perfectly safe.
4. Fires set after the collapse of 1, when someone managed to sneak into the burning building past the firefighters. Also, they happened to know ahead of time or analyze 1's collapse (in less than two hours), in such a way as to make the fires plausibly spread from the impact zone.

And in all of these scenarios, they somehow managed to pay off or plant an FDNY engineer to lie about the building's damage. Good thing for them those firefighters who had actually been in the building were also worried about it, huh?

It's kind of interesting how you indirectly accuse NIST of complicity, but are only willing to actually say that you don't think their explanation is correct.

 

[Newtons Bit]

So where are the results of Mr. Szamboti's FEA for WTC7?

 

[Sunstealer]

Lol. "premature". How many decades should it take for someone to develop a hypothesis that better explains the events of the day? Maybe by the year 3001?

3001: A Twoofer Odyssey.

 

[LSSBB]

Every engineer I have shown video of WTC 7's collapse to and explained the freefall and that the NIST model does not replicate this freefall has taken the position that it needs to be re-investigated.

The fact that certain organizations haven't taken the initiative to request a re-investigation means nothing.

The NIST acceleration curve only hits freefall at two points. Since you cite NIST for your freefall time, I gather you agree with their analysis. How does YOUR model account for transition period to free fall plus acceleration exceeding freefall? At least NIST has progressive colapse from inside to outside, which can account for their curve.

In addition, you still have not disproved NIST collapse initiation as far as I have seen, because you have yet to validate your assumptions.

In any case, the fact still stands: only fire and some impact damage has been observed as a collapse initiation mechanism. No CD initiation mechanisms have been observed - no visual or auditory evidence of collumn severing, no demolition equipment remains, no confessions, no paper trail, no explosive residuals, no evidence of demolition severed columns.

 

[R.Mackey]

So where are the results of Mr. Szamboti's FEA for WTC7?

Since they aren't forthcoming, and he's instead begun to repeat some of the stalest arguments in all of Trutherdom, I can only assume he's not very proud of his results.

 

[tfk]

North Tower collapses at 10:28 AM and the first photos of fires in WTC 7 were taken at about 12:15 PM. That is a 107 minute delay.

So . . . . . . . . . what?

As my previous post attempted to illustrate, the photographers were not sitting around drinking tea during that interval. They were running for their lives.

The dust settled within a half hour

Who cares.

The VAST majority of people did NOT return to the site. They weren't ALLOWED to by the police.

This took away the vast majority of cameras. The professional camera shots, both still & video, represent a small percentage of all shots. The majority were taken by civilians.

Dramatically fewer cameras after the collapse mean dramatically fewer events captured on film.

I am totally baffled as to what part of this is too difficult for you to understand…

and the police helicopters would not have landed right after the North Tower went down and would have been looking for problems.

Another "Szamboti would have…".

The police helicopters would have landed whenever they were ordered to by the FAA. And that decision was completely divorced from the timing of the collapse of the towers.

And "looking for problems" does NOT include training a camera on a building that was NOT occupied, that was NOT burning, and holding it there so that your imaginary, prescient photographer could capture the first wisps of smoke that emerged.

Why didn't they see anything?

You live in fantasy-land when you are discussing the things that DO happen.

You live on hallucinogenics in fantasy-land when you start expanding your delusions into "what did NOT happen".

If you have some pictures, with dates, that show that the building was NOT burning at some particular time, then that is evidence. The lack of a picture is evidence of nothing except … the lack of a picture.

If you have some pictures, with dates, that show that the coulmns were not buckling at some particular time, then that is evidence. The lack of a picture is evidence of nothing except … the lack of a picture.

You've been bludgeoned into submission so many time on what did happen, that you're now running for cover by dragging everyone into pointless speculation about what did not happen.

Do you think that this is clever?
Do you think that the level of desperation indicated by this "strategy" goes unnoticed?

 

[tfk]

Veterans of [the Dieppe] attack are only now finding out that it did have a purpose beyond just being an excuse to get a bunch of allied soldiers killed.

Your portrayal of the of the motivations for launching the attack shows exactly the same sort of callous disregard for reason & historical accuracy that truthers customarily show for the events of 9/11.

In the real world, crystal balls are in short supply.

 

[LashL]

Folks, the thread topic - please get back to it and stick to it. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

 

[tfk]

So where are the results of Mr. Szamboti's FEA for WTC7?

It's not just the results that need to be disclosed.

I want to see the details of the model.

This issue was demonstrated clearly by a major mistake that I made.

I misread the drawings & included lifting flanges in a calculation of moment of inertia.

But I posted the details of my calculation, including the drawing that I used.

In less than ONE DAY, others pointed out the error. And I agreed immediately & withdrew those calculations.

And that particular error was gone, never to be repeated.

If I had taken the Szamboti approach, tho, I would have simply posted my results, a number, and told everyone, "go do the calculation yourself".

And the question of "what number is right" would never get answered.

This whole process only moves forward with total disclosure.

 

[tfk]

Every engineer I have shown video of WTC 7's collapse to and explained the freefall and that the NIST model does not replicate this freefall has taken the position that it needs to be re-investigated.

I find this assertion residing smack dab between unbelievable & laughable, when you cannot convince even one of the engineers here of anything that you say.

 

[MileHighMadness]

Every engineer I have shown video of WTC 7's collapse to and explained the freefall and that the NIST model does not replicate this freefall has taken the position that it needs to be re-investigated.

Okay, Tony send me the video of his computer model. I have looked at it, and I'm NOT convinced that there needs to be a re-investigated. BTW...I'm a engineer.

 

[BasqueArch]

Every engineer I have shown video of WTC 7's collapse to and explained the freefall and that the NIST model does not replicate this freefall has taken the position that it needs to be re-investigated.

The fact that certain organizations haven't taken the initiative to request a re-investigation means nothing.

It's easy to repeatedly preach to the truther choir of those that know nothing about structural engineering. Like someone here suggested, TS should give a talk at a SEAoNY meeting and show hands before and after his talk. So far TS claims a 100% success rate with the engineers he claims to have converted. I don't believe it. TS is not brave enough to try to BS a roomful of true professionals.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

So where are the results of Mr. Szamboti's FEA for WTC7?

Since they aren't forthcoming, and he's instead begun to repeat some of the stalest arguments in all of Trutherdom, I can only assume he's not very proud of his results.

The FEA results are quite clear and show that a walk-off of the girder between columns 44 and 79 under the 13th floor of WTC 7 was impossible due to heating from fire.

I have both of your e-mail addresses and will send you slides of the results this week if you want to see them.

 

[Newtons Bit]

The FEA results are quite clear and show that a walk-off of the girder between columns 44 and 79 under the 13th floor of WTC 7 was impossible due to heating from fire.

I have both of your e-mail addresses and will send you slides of the results this week if you want to see them.

I'd like to see more than color slides. I don't know what FEA program you're using, but more of mine have options to create reports. See if you can do the same.

 

[R.Mackey]

The FEA results are quite clear and show that a walk-off of the girder between columns 44 and 79 under the 13th floor of WTC 7 was impossible due to heating from fire.

I have both of your e-mail addresses and will send you slides of the results this week if you want to see them.

Don't go to any trouble. If you're unwilling to provide them for open review, then I have all the information I need.

Come back when you've got something. I believe I've been telling you this for years now?

 

[NoahFence]

Tony, why don't you think a multi-ton, multi-story tall section of steel slamming into the side of a much smaller building isn't enough to start a fire in that building, when we've all seen fire started with less?