MM…the problem is…the girder doesn’t slide off the bearing seat…the whole connection rips apart...
Whilst your claim is probably true "the problem" in this thread and it's associated predecessor thread is broader.
The situation is that certain opponents of the NIST explanation, notably Tony Szamboti and to a lesser extent enik, have kept the objective of discussion ambiguous. And various debunkers have gone along with ambiguities both in objective and scope of WTC 7 structure involved - how far to take the analysis away from the immediate context - the immediately adjacent components - and into more remote parts of structure which may have been involved in the shape distortions leading to failure.
So the discussion has, prior to this thread, fallen into two camps viz:
1) Those debunkers who have either accepted Tony Sz's limited setting for his FEA or some other similarly limited setting and sought to prove Tony wrong within what was more or less Tony's chosen physical context. The status of discussion for this approach is IIRC that several members, now including yourself MHM, have claimed that Tony's FEA is wrong therefore Tony's claim is wrong on the basis of errors at the detail level; AND
2) Myself supported by LSSBB (there may have been others - my apology to any that I have missed.) I took and stand by a different line of argument which complements the more detailed line of argument described under "1)" above. That argument is, stated briefly:
a) Tony S has made claims that the NIST detailed explanation of girder walk off is wrong;
b) Since it is his claim it is his burden of proof to support his claim - not "our" burden of proof to disprove his claim;
c) I challenged Tony on the scope of his FEA to show that he takes into account sufficient of the overall WTC structure that his FEA could be valid - initially it was an assumption that only the girder changed shape and the gap between the columns was unchanged. Later it got somewhat broader but never "proved" that the scope went far enough;
d) Tony has not addressed that failure of his assumptions - it is his burden to do so not "our" burden to show him wrong - so therefore his initial assumptions of context are not supported and his claim is not made out.
e) That fact does not prove him wrong but rigorously shows that his claim is not made out. Which is good enough for my purpose - to show that his claim fails. (And I am well aware that my statement is probably too subtle for many of our members who prefer a more detailed "black or white" style of argument. I ain't disagreeing just adding additional proof.
)
Hence my reference in recent post that the "detailed level" arguments have claimed that Tony has been proven wrong and that my arguments show that he has not shown that his claim is right.
The latter position being all that is needed to assert with assurance that his claim fails.
So that deals with the my claim that "the position" has ambiguities of technical scope.
The other ambiguities I referred to - ambiguities of objective - are the usual ones we expect in truther rhetoric. First the underlying issue here is "CD or not?" linked by truther illogic to "Was NIST wrong?" Two separate issues. There either was or was not CD on 9/11 and that is a matter of historic fact. Whether or not NIST got the explanation right X years later cannot change the historic fact. If NIST said "Too much ice cream brought down WTC7" that statement:
1) Would be wrong; AND
2) would not change the historic fact of "CD or not CD?"
Hence the routine confusing of objectives by "truthers" or "trolls" whose goal is to prevent discussion progressing anywhere in the direction of truth.
There have been other ambiguities deployed plus the the global claim error which MM employs in his latest post. Viz "If one minor detail of the NIST report is wrong the whole report collapses." Hogwash and easily shown as hogwash but I won't derail from my focus at this stage.
Now the setting of this thread is more tightly framed.
Essentially the OP has three key aspects:
A) The claim in the title that "The fires failed Girder 44-79";
B) A repetition of the claim that Tony Sz was wrong based on the "detail level" approach I identified earlier; AND
C) This final comment "The girder failed due to fire not CD"
If I revert to my higher level approach I state that both "A" and "C" are true for higher level reasons independent of all the detail level rebuttals.
The situation with all WTC collapses is that there is not and never has been a supported prima facie claim of CD. And, as I said in my previous post, it is a true dichotomy. The options for WTC7 are "fire" or "Fire plus CD in some combination". A true dichotomy.
There was no CD therefore "Fire" - absolutely independent of whether NIST got the detailed explanation right OR whether Tony Sz'z FEA is right or wrong.
So:
- no matter how many times Tony repeats his unsupported assertions;
- no matter how many times MM tries to focus on an irrelevant bit of detail;
- no matter how much the engineers who prefer the detailed technical focus enjoy proving that Tony has his FEA wrong;
etc etc....
The three claims that BasqueArch identified in his OP are correct.
Restated as two claims:
(i)The girder fell as a consequence of fire because the whole building fell as a consequence of fire because there was no CD; AND
(ii) Tony Sz's claims are wrong - to the satisfaction of numerous engineers including yourself who have shown his errors at the details level AND from my perspective - argued and not rebutted in the earlier thread - they fail from Tony's refusal to meet his burden of proof and justify his base assumptions.
) This is simply a wash rinse repeat cycle. Time has past since the last slap down of this crazy notion, so now it had become time to repeat it as a "fresh" idea.
