NIST Releases FINAL WTC 7 Report - Nov. 20 [Archive]

Reality Believer

21st November 2008, 09:15 AM

The final, final, NIST WTC 7 report was released yesterday. Earth shattering news: No changes to the major findings!

Another one to bed. Geez guys, what are we going to talk about now? :boxedin:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/techbeat/tbx2008_1120_wtc7.htm

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) today released its final report (http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1Aindex.htm) on the Sept. 11, 2001, collapse of the 47-story World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7) in New York City. The final report is strengthened by clarifications and supplemental text suggested by organizations and individuals worldwide in response to the draft WTC 7 report, released for public comment on Aug. 21, but the revisions did not alter the investigation team’s major findings and recommendations, which include identification of fire as the primary cause for the building’s failure.

RedIbis

21st November 2008, 09:20 AM

Reality Believer

21st November 2008, 09:24 AM

So they still won't produce Column 79 or any other physical evidence which supports their unprecedented column collapse due to fire and global collapse due to single column failure theory. Nope, no reason for skepticism at all.
NIST says:

In response to comments from the building community, NIST conducted an additional computer analysis. The goal was to see if the loss of WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.

16.5

21st November 2008, 09:52 AM

So they still won't produce Column 79 or any other physical evidence which supports their unprecedented column collapse due to fire and global collapse due to single column failure theory. Nope, no reason for skepticism at all.

Red, it has been seven years, and all you can do is snark on the internet?

Do you have any reason to believe that the modeling performed is deficient? If so, what is it?

If you are going to simply post from here on out based on incredulity, please let me know, so we can put you on ignore.

GStan

21st November 2008, 10:03 AM

At RB's link, you can read all of the public comments that were submitted. Chris Bollyn's is there. I haven't read them all yet. I got a kick out of Nancy Hall's.

Carry on.

Kent1

21st November 2008, 10:07 AM

The PDF isn't working for me at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf

Anyone else have any luck.

GStan

21st November 2008, 10:13 AM

The PDF isn't working for me at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf

Anyone else have any luck.

I just clicked on your link and it worked.

Reality Believer

21st November 2008, 10:13 AM

The PDF isn't working for me at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf

Anyone else have any luck.
I get "bad encrypt dictionary error" :(

ETA: Updated Adobe Reader and all is good

GStan

21st November 2008, 10:19 AM

At RB's link, you can read all of the public comments that were submitted. Chris Bollyn's is there. I haven't read them all yet. I got a kick out of Nancy Hall's.

Carry on.

Don't read Judy Wood's unless you have some liquor handy. I wonder if someone at NIST had to spend time reading all 121 pages of her commentary.:hypnotize

JamesB

21st November 2008, 10:24 AM

Bollyn? Should they be accepting comments from wanted felons? Shouldn't this be handed over as evidence to the US Marshalls office or something?

JamesB

21st November 2008, 10:29 AM

LOL, I love Kevin Ryan's comments:

Comment: You have disgraced my country and the human race. Additionally, you are now personally responsible for the ongoing death and destruction resulting from the 9/11 Wars. The story of your dishonor will be repeated endlessly.

Reason for comment: Your deceptive reports are malevolent and revolting.

Not just malevolent, but also revolting.

I think Ryan is about to go all Kevin Barrett on us...

Crazytimes

21st November 2008, 10:44 AM

Something must be wrong here. I did a search on that PDF for the words "Melt" "Melted" "Melting" and found nothing. All 130 pages. I keep hearing from conspiracy theorists that NIST claimed the steel melted. Hmm... :D

GStan

21st November 2008, 11:05 AM

At least five or six commenters wanted to know why NIST did not investigate Larry Silverstein's use of the phrase "pull it".

:drool:

Pardalis

21st November 2008, 11:05 AM

Kent1

21st November 2008, 11:07 AM

I get "bad encrypt dictionary error" :(

ETA: Updated Adobe Reader and all is good

Thanks, now everything is working.

bje

21st November 2008, 11:14 AM

jaydeehess

21st November 2008, 11:20 AM

So they still won't produce Column 79 or any other physical evidence which supports their unprecedented column collapse due to fire and global collapse due to single column failure theory. Nope, no reason for skepticism at all.

What would you expect to find on col 79 which could establish, or refute, the findings of the computer analysis that the failure of col 79 led to global collapse?

Do attempt to be specific please.

Pardalis

21st November 2008, 11:22 AM

It must be hard wanting a conspiracy SO much and not getting it in the end.

It's like that remote-controlled flying Superman doll my older sister kept promising to give me if I did what she wanted when I was little. :(

GStan

21st November 2008, 11:26 AM

What would you expect to find on col 79 which could establish, or refute, the findings of the computer analysis that the failure of col 79 led to global collapse?

Do attempt to be specific please.

A long, ridiculously thick, metal cable attached to it, and perhaps a note from a demolition worker that reads "Larry Silverstein told me to pull on this."

lapman

21st November 2008, 11:51 AM

So they still won't produce Column 79 or any other physical evidence which supports their unprecedented column collapse due to fire and global collapse due to single column failure theory. Nope, no reason for skepticism at all.
You won't produce any explosives, blasting caps, det chord, etc. as physical evidence of a controlled demolition. So, what's your point?

RKOwens4

21st November 2008, 11:55 AM

My recommendation to them is included on their public comments section (http://wtc.nist.gov/comments08/), under Ryan Owens. :)

It wasn't anything to do with the engineering side of things, but I did notice where they accidentally repeated two paragraphs almost word for word, with only a few minor changes (they probably revised a paragraph and forgot to delete the old one). Anyway, now I can say I had a hand in the final draft on WTC7! (Albeit, a very very small one. ;) )

defaultdotxbe

21st November 2008, 12:02 PM

NIST says:
it will be interesting to see if the truthers use this to their advantage, or if they will refuse to accept anything from NIST

T.A.M.

21st November 2008, 12:03 PM

So they still won't produce Column 79 or any other physical evidence which supports their unprecedented column collapse due to fire and global collapse due to single column failure theory. Nope, no reason for skepticism at all.

1. Given they did not collect column 79, I don't think they'll be producing it...but you know that...sarcasm noted.

2. Produce a better theory with more evidence (circumstantial, video, photo, witness testimony wise), and I am all ears. Otherwise, it is the best there is...like it or lump it.

TAM:)

Grizzly Bear

21st November 2008, 12:05 PM

Don't read Judy Wood's unless you have some liquor handy. I wonder if someone at NIST had to spend time reading all 121 pages of her commentary.:hypnotize

Am I supposed to get drunk just from reading that? Because I feel like I just did without that liquor :boggled:

Somehow I get the impression (rhetorical thinking) that regardless of the conclusion NIST determines, most people who rejected the final draft are unlikely to change their views for the final release...

Hokulele

21st November 2008, 12:08 PM

2. Produce a better theory with more evidence (circumstantial, video, photo, witness testimony wise), and I am all ears. Otherwise, it is the best there is...like it or lump it.

Or, if you cannot produce one with more evidence, at least include ninjas. If you cannot develop a theory based on fact, base it on entertainment.

~enigma~

21st November 2008, 01:18 PM

LOL, I love Kevin Ryan's comments:

Not just malevolent, but also revolting.

I think Ryan is about to go all Kevin Barrett on us...
Always said Aquaman was an embarrassment to chemists all over the world. Now he proves it again only this time there can be no doubt about it.

jaydeehess

21st November 2008, 01:24 PM

Am I supposed to get drunk just from reading that? Because I feel like I just did without that liquor :boggled:

Somehow I get the impression (rhetorical thinking) that regardless of the conclusion NIST determines, most people who rejected the final draft are unlikely to change their views for the final release...

I read only a small part. I did not get drunk, instead i seemed to skip right past drunk to hung over.:D

jaydeehess

21st November 2008, 01:25 PM

A long, ridiculously thick, metal cable attached to it, and perhaps a note from a demolition worker that reads "Larry Silverstein told me to pull on this."

THAT is the type of specificity that is sorely lacking in the TM.;):D

cludgie

21st November 2008, 02:37 PM

Somehow I get the impression (rhetorical thinking) that regardless of the conclusion NIST determines, most people who rejected the final draft are unlikely to change their views for the final release...

Well if you remember the day the draft was made public then the troofers were releasing their 'its all a sham and full and lies' statements and rejecting it before anyone even had the time to skim-read the report. They don't care what the report says if it doesn't say 'OMG! INSIDE JOB!!'

Mr.Herbert

21st November 2008, 02:51 PM

I read only a small part. I did not get drunk, instead i seemed to skip right past drunk to hung over.:D

For the love of God...

Wood's second complaint was in the introduction....about the weather????

http://wtc.nist.gov/comments08/judyWoodwtc7comments.pdf

1337m4n

21st November 2008, 02:59 PM

Mr.Herbert

21st November 2008, 03:04 PM

I have to add.... Mike Shea of Grass Roots Media failed to spell the name of his organization correctly.

Gotta love these dolts.

http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o233/CameronFox/grass.jpg

JamesB

21st November 2008, 03:26 PM

I have to add.... Mike Shea of Grass Roots Media failed to spell the name of his organization correctly.

Gotta love these dolts.

http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o233/CameronFox/grass.jpg

Is "time of decent" some sort of measurement of politeness?

Mr.Herbert

21st November 2008, 03:31 PM

Is "time of decent" some sort of measurement of politeness?

I missed that !!!!

:dl:

ktesibios

21st November 2008, 03:41 PM

parky76

21st November 2008, 05:26 PM

I'm sure the folks at NIST are working hard to recalculate and reevaluate all of their findings, due to the truthers' expert suggestions and criticisms.

=)

Hokulele

21st November 2008, 05:52 PM

Purely out of curiosity, I tried reading a random sampling of the comments from individuals.

Oh my.

Somewhere in an office at NIST there's an employee who really deserves a coupon for a free family size bottle of aspirin.

It kind of makes our Stundies look a bit tame, doesn't it? I wonder if they had an in-house award for the nuttiest comment from a froot loop...

Cl1mh4224rd

21st November 2008, 05:58 PM

Well if you remember the day the draft was made public then the troofers were releasing their 'its all a sham and full and lies' statements and rejecting it before anyone even had the time to skim-read the report. They don't care what the report says if it doesn't say 'OMG! INSIDE JOB!!'

Didn't Richard Gage have some kind of phone conference before the report was even released where he did just that? "I haven't read it, but it's a sham, and here's why..."

Homeland Insurgency

21st November 2008, 10:30 PM

Gage buried the report with Gravy

parky76

21st November 2008, 11:28 PM

Gage buried the report with Gravy

Gravy was buried?

skepticalcriticalguy

22nd November 2008, 01:27 AM

So it's 'official' then; time to rewrite all fire codes.

dtugg

22nd November 2008, 01:35 AM

So it's 'official' then; time to rewrite all fire codes.

Codes have already been rewritten due to what happened on 9/11.

dtugg

22nd November 2008, 01:42 AM

So they still won't produce Column 79 or any other physical evidence which supports their unprecedented column collapse due to fire and global collapse due to single column failure theory. Nope, no reason for skepticism at all.

The steel used in building WTC7 wasn't marked in such a way for them to determine where it came from. Therefore, even if they found pieces of column 79, they wouldn't have known exactly what it was. Your paranoid comments mean nothing.

boloboffin

22nd November 2008, 04:58 AM

Hey, my comment is there, too! Along with that embarrassing place where I accidently cut part of a paragraph off and sent it in anyway!

:dl:

Ah, well, them's the breaks.

RKOwens4

22nd November 2008, 11:56 AM

So it's 'official' then; time to rewrite all fire codes.

I'm majoring in mechanical engineering and things have already changed after 9/11, as would be expected. Codes changed after the Titanic sank. Even the new WTC7 is much improved from the original. Check out the concrete core, wider stairwells, and the water sprinkler standpipes INSIDE the stairwell in this video I shot: youtube.com/watch?v=VhYD-09u_w8

It's much safer. No one would go in it if it weren't.

bje

22nd November 2008, 01:18 PM

LOL, I love Kevin Ryan's comments:

Not just malevolent, but also revolting.

I think Ryan is about to go all Kevin Barrett on us...

Obviously, no one in the truth movement ever read this:

http://tinyurl.com/5afyry

parky76

22nd November 2008, 01:23 PM

the truth movement died in 2007.

RKOwens4

22nd November 2008, 08:04 PM

I love Kevin Ryan's letter. He isn't even trying anymore, he's just hurling insults.

PS, anyone else remember how someone (may have been me) posted a thread last May or so about how Kevin Ryan was still asking for - and accepting - donations for his court case against UL, even though the case ended with the judge throwing it out in August 2007 and Ryan chose not to appeal it? I sent an email to the Scholars website and they said they hadn't updated the site in a while and would take it down. Well, I had forgotten about this since then, but the other day I checked the Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice website and, guess what... it's STILL there! They're STILL taking donations for Kevin Ryan's court case, even though it was thrown out over a year ago now!

boloboffin

23rd November 2008, 04:37 AM

WildCat

23rd November 2008, 08:25 AM

RedIbis

23rd November 2008, 08:44 AM

Something is rotten in Denmark.

When quoting the Bard, please be precise.

"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark."

boloboffin

23rd November 2008, 03:05 PM

How absolute the knave is! We must speak by the card, or equivocation will undo us.

kookbreaker

23rd November 2008, 04:27 PM

How absolute the knave is! We must speak by the card, or equivocation will undo us.

a braggart, a rogue, a villain who fights by the book or arithmetic*.

*Bonus points if you know what the speaker is really talking about!

RedIbis

23rd November 2008, 05:16 PM

How absolute the knave is! We must speak by the card, or equivocation will undo us.

"I am glad of it, a knavish speech sleeps in a foolish ear."

Could you imagine if Hamlet was a jref member? He'd win the pith award every time.

1337m4n

23rd November 2008, 06:52 PM

*Bonus points if you know what the speaker is really talking about!

Your mom. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

ref

24th November 2008, 02:04 AM

Here are some of the entities picked from the comments section, who agree with NIST that it was fire that caused the collapse.

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA):

The draft report by NIST on August 18, 2008 is what NFPA believes to be a very thorough, technical, scientific study of a building loss investigation that is only rivaled by the WTC 1 and WTC 2 study released in 2005. Additionally, NFPA is pleased to see the work effort of NIST resulting in positions on many controversial and sometimes, unpopular subjects.
http://wtc.nist.gov/comments08/kristinCollettewtc7comments.pdf

My added note from NFPA website (http://www.nfpa.org/categoryList.asp?categoryID=143&URL=About%20Us):

The world's leading advocate of fire prevention and an authoritative source on public safety, NFPA develops, publishes, and disseminates more than 300 consensus codes and standards intended to minimize the possibility and effects of fire and other risks. NFPA membership totals more than 81,000 individuals around the world and more than 80 national trade and professional organizations.

The International Code Council (ICC)

The ICC would like to commend NIST and its contractors on the quality and thoroughness of the report. The professionalism exhibited by the report is commendable and demonstrates to the public the high level of technical expertise and management excellence of NIST and its public and private sector partners. This expertise is especially important in the evaluation of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, which has been the subject of intense public and media attention.

The ICC is a 40,000+ member association dedicated to building safety and fire protection.
http://wtc.nist.gov/comments08/ICCwtc7comments.pdf

The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH):

The Council believes that the NIST report is a responsible attempt to find the cause of the failure, and finds that the report has investigated many of the probable causes. The Council has several technical questions about details of the modeling; but we would not expect that to change the conclusions: that the floor beams failed due to fire, which led to buckling of the internal columns resulting in global failure.
http://wtc.nist.gov/comments08/CTBUHwtc7comments.pdf

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ):

I would like to compliment you and your staff for the tremendous effort in preparing the draft report that was released on August 21, 2008
http://wtc.nist.gov/comments08/PANYNJlombardiwtc7comments.pdf

So let me see. Should I trust the professional organizations like NFPA and ICC, which represent more than 120,000 members, and agree it was fire that caused the collapse. Or should I trust organizations like AE911Truth, which represent about 500 conspiracy theorists, and agree it was a controlled demolition that caused the collapse?

What do you think?

boloboffin

24th November 2008, 04:04 AM

500 conspiracy theorists and their hangers-on...

KDLarsen

24th November 2008, 04:06 AM

Someone from Denmark, I believe, found my email address on the public comments and sent me a letter informing me that there was no evidence of Muslim terrorists boarding the planes. I replied that indeed there was and sent him several links of evidence. Then I got the diatribe.
I apologise on behalf of my countrymen. Sadly the twoofers overhere are much like everywhere else, few in numbers but annoyingly loud.

EDIT: I see we even have our very own DRG-clone, some university hack who likes to claim more knowledge than engineers & who likes having meetings on a regular occasions to 'discuss' the latest technical findings :rolleyes:

2nd EDIT: .. and said DRG-clone has even made a movie. That should be interesting to watch.

boloboffin

24th November 2008, 04:55 AM

I apologise on behalf of my countrymen. Sadly the twoofers overhere are much like everywhere else, few in numbers but annoyingly loud.

EDIT: I see we even have our very own DRG-clone, some university hack who likes to claim more knowledge than engineers & who likes having meetings on a regular occasions to 'discuss' the latest technical findings :rolleyes:

2nd EDIT: .. and said DRG-clone has even made a movie. That should be interesting to watch.

Hmmm. What's his name?

KDLarsen

24th November 2008, 05:07 AM

Hmmm. What's his name?
The DRG-clone? That would be Niels Harrit, lector in Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen.

boloboffin

24th November 2008, 10:22 AM

The DRG-clone? That would be Niels Harrit, lector in Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen.

Ah, then not my guy. Just an idle thought.

JamesB

24th November 2008, 10:47 AM

Someone from Denmark, I believe, found my email address on the public comments and sent me a letter informing me that there was no evidence of Muslim terrorists boarding the planes. I replied that indeed there was and sent him several links of evidence. Then I got the diatribe.

Sigh.

That sounds like Elias Davidson, from Germany. He e-mailed me demanding evidence of hijackers, I sent him all the stuff from the commission report, but he said that he wouldn't accept anything from the government because they can't be trusted.

So I then asked him to prove that Germany invaded France in WWII, but that I wouldn't accept anything from historians, because they can't be trusted.

He stopped e-mailing me.

boloboffin

24th November 2008, 11:12 AM

That sounds like Elias Davidson, from Germany. He e-mailed me demanding evidence of hijackers, I sent him all the stuff from the commission report, but he said that he wouldn't accept anything from the government because they can't be trusted.

So I then asked him to prove that Germany invaded France in WWII, but that I wouldn't accept anything from historians, because they can't be trusted.

He stopped e-mailing me.

Bingo! I just told him to never email me again. And to his credit, he hasn't.

ETA: Oh, duh, .de isn't Denmark, it's Deutschland.

JamesB

24th November 2008, 11:16 AM

He was rather polite. I just explained to him that it was a pointless exchange, since he would dismiss any evidence that he didn't like. There was no way to falsify his beliefs.

jaydeehess

24th November 2008, 12:00 PM

So they still won't produce Column 79 or any other physical evidence which supports their unprecedented column collapse due to fire and global collapse due to single column failure theory. Nope, no reason for skepticism at all.

What would you expect to find on col 79 which could establish, or refute, the findings of the computer analysis that the failure of col 79 led to global collapse?

Do attempt to be specific please.

Red-Ibis , you might have missed this question.

What would you expect to find on col 79 that would support or refute the NIST hypothesis, or for that matter a CD hypothesis?

Mince

24th November 2008, 01:48 PM

I'm soundly reserving judgment until Christopher7 gives his expert opinion.

jaydeehess

24th November 2008, 04:17 PM

I'm soundly reserving judgment until Christopher7 gives his expert opinion.

You must have missed it, Chris is going with ae911t on this one.
See the 10 storey hole in WTC 7 thread IIRC.

RedIbis

24th November 2008, 05:47 PM

Red-Ibis , you might have missed this question.

What would you expect to find on col 79 that would support or refute the NIST hypothesis, or for that matter a CD hypothesis?

If the theory is that Column 79 failed due to fire, and this column failure caused global collapse, I'd expect some physical evidence to back that up, perhaps the column itself. Maybe we'd see the result of such extreme heat, the stress it was under, etc. Apparently, around here, computer simulations will do instead.

I don't think you guys realize how silly it sounds when you support a theory that has no physical evidence to back up its two novel phenomena.

Btodd

24th November 2008, 05:53 PM

RedIbis

24th November 2008, 05:58 PM

Red Ibis, could you at least give me a motive for destroying WTC 7 hours after the twin towers fell, and the building had been evacuated?

I want to understand why it makes any sense at all to you, despite the fact that there's no evidence to support it.

Truly a red herring. This thread is about NIST's WTC 7 collapse theory and whether or not you think it's necessary that they produce the key physical evidence.

Either you think physical evidence is necessary to support their theory or you don't.

dtugg

24th November 2008, 06:01 PM

1337m4n

24th November 2008, 06:15 PM

Apparently, around here, computer simulations will do instead.

What's your view on Global Warming?

Arus808

24th November 2008, 07:07 PM

dtugg

24th November 2008, 07:10 PM

wow, red. care to explain why a computer simulation can't be taken for a good model of a real world event?

Computer simulations have been used as scientific means and as evidence in many court cases.

Well, obviously NIST is shilling for Bush and Silverstein who blew up the building for no reason. So they fudged the computer simulation otherwise they might have lost their jobs or something.

Arus808

24th November 2008, 07:11 PM

yeah and the thousands of other engineers out there, who do use computer modeling and simulation didn't detect the fraud? :)

defaultdotxbe

24th November 2008, 07:34 PM

i wonder if red flies much, considering most planes today are designed on computers (maybe he only flies in really old planes?)

rwguinn

24th November 2008, 09:32 PM

wow, red. care to explain why a computer simulation can't be taken for a good model of a real world event?

Computer simulations have been used as scientific means and as evidence in many court cases.
Every airplane you fly on; every vehicle you ride in; every STS mission--all analyzed for safety and success by...
Yes, Computer simulation.
It costs a bunch of bucks to build something and test it, break it, fix the problems, build another one, test it, break it somewhere else, build another one, etc, etc until it takes the load and lasts as long as you intended it to.

too bad. Amazingly enough, sims are damned accurate things, properly done.

WildCat

24th November 2008, 09:41 PM

Every airplane you fly on; every vehicle you ride in; every STS mission--all analyzed for safety and success by...
Yes, Computer simulation.
It costs a bunch of bucks to build something and test it, break it, fix the problems, build another one, test it, break it somewhere else, build another one, etc, etc until it takes the load and lasts as long as you intended it to.

too bad. Amazingly enough, sims are damned accurate things, properly done.
Who was the truther here who would settle for nothing less than a replica WTC be built and a 767 flown into it to see if it would collapse?

johnny karate

24th November 2008, 09:44 PM

Cl1mh4224rd

24th November 2008, 11:19 PM

I don't think you guys realize how silly it sounds when you support a theory that has no physical evidence to back up its two novel phenomena.

Uhh... Are you sure you're not confused, RedIbis? Because the "movement" that you implicitly side with has the problem you describe here.

Pardalis

24th November 2008, 11:32 PM

Either you think physical evidence is necessary to support their theory or you don't.

What physical evidence would prove controlled demolition?

Dave Rogers

25th November 2008, 01:52 AM

I don't think you guys realize how silly it sounds when you support a theory that has no physical evidence to back up its two novel phenomena.

Let's see, then. Physical evidence of controlled demolition of the towers? Nope. Physical evidence of faking of airfone calls? Nope. Physical evidence of remote controlled takeover of airliners? Nope. Physical evidence of a missile at the Pentagon? Nope. Physical evidence of a shoot-down at Shanksville? Nope. Physical evidence of a NORAD stand-down? Nope. Physical evidence of CIA control of al-Qaeda? Nope.

Should I go on?

Dave

funk de fino

25th November 2008, 02:42 AM

RedIbis

25th November 2008, 05:52 AM

It's like a school of red herring just took over this thread.

WildCat

25th November 2008, 06:26 AM

It's like a school of red herring just took over this thread.
No, it's like we have another truther who refuses to apply the same burden of proof to his own assertions as he demands of the accepted course of events.

Evidence RedIbis, got any? Of course you don't. You, like every other truther ever, don't even have a coherent theory. You're like a creationist who thinks if he can poke enough holes in the ToE he has somehow proved that Godidit.

And, of course, you and your fellow truthers haven't managed to poke even a pin-sized hole in anything to date. But the pure comedy of the assorted ignoramuses in the "truth" movement attempting to refute the collective opinion of renowned experts is so fun to watch!

RedIbis

25th November 2008, 06:38 AM

No, it's like we have another truther who refuses to apply the same burden of proof to his own assertions as he demands of the accepted course of events.

Evidence RedIbis, got any? Of course you don't. You, like every other truther ever, don't even have acoherent theory. You're like a creationist who thinks if he can poke enough holes in the ToE he has somehow proved that Godidit.

And, of course, you and your fellow truthers haven't managed to poke even a pin-sized hole in anything to date. But the pure comedy of the assorted ignoramuses in the "truth" movement attempting to refute the collective opinion of renowned experts is so fun to watch!

What does any of this have to do with the lack of physical evidence that supports the NIST's magic column theory?

WildCat

25th November 2008, 06:51 AM

What does any of this have to do with the lack of physical evidence that supports the NIST's magic column theory?
The physical evidence is that WTC 7 became a pile of smoking rubble.

We know the building was on fire. We know the fires were not fought. We know the sprinkler systems were not operable. We know where the fires were, we know how the building was constructed. Therefore, we can make a determination as to what caused the collapse.

We have no evidence at all of bombs, of thermite, of mini-nukes, of space beams, etc etc etc.

Reasonable people make conclusions based on this evidence. Truthers like you have only speculation, innuendo, and "pull it". :rolleyes:

Grizzly Bear

25th November 2008, 06:54 AM

What does any of this have to do with the lack of physical evidence that supports the NIST's magic column theory?

In other words the evidence you apparently expect from "debunkers" is not the same standard you hold for yourself. What about these? (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4225233&postcount=82)

You claim column 79 and the lack of a physical sample of the said column is sufficient evidence to conclude an "unnatural" collapse. I'm rather curious if you have more than that as a basis for your position, a collective body of evidence that indicates the claim you're implying

RedIbis

25th November 2008, 06:59 AM

You claim column 79 and the lack of a physical sample of the said column is sufficient evidence to conclude an "unnatural" collapse.

I did? Don't hesitate to use the quote function.

Grizzly Bear

25th November 2008, 07:04 AM

I did? Don't hesitate to use the quote function.
Sure:
What does any of this have to do with the lack of physical evidence that supports the NIST's magic column theory?

It's you claiming that column 79 is some kind of magical theory. If you've got more substance than that and a better theory to boot, then by all means share it... You don't need to state your position in such an indirect fashion... what is it I should conclude then RI from your position? Your lack of effort to directly state your conclusion isn't helping

rwguinn

25th November 2008, 07:07 AM

Let's see, then. Physical evidence of controlled demolition of the towers? Nope. Physical evidence of faking of airfone calls? Nope. Physical evidence of remote controlled takeover of airliners? Nope. Physical evidence of a missile at the Pentagon? Nope. Physical evidence of a shoot-down at Shanksville? Nope. Physical evidence of a NORAD stand-down? Nope. Physical evidence of CIA control of al-Qaeda? Nope.

Should I go on?

Dave
What the troofer idiots cannot see to get past is that in engineering, "past performance is an exact replica of future performance"
The properties of materials DO NOT change from hour to hour. The performance of structural subsystems are the same for a given configuration and material-always!
We have hundreds--even thousands -- of years of experience in building things that hold up, and in knowing why they hold up, through imperical data-gathering.
Every new structure/system is built upon experience gathered from previous designs, and knowing through testing, data collection, and yes, even failures.
Unlike troothers, economists, politicians, and political parties, engineers and scientists actually do learn from the past.

GStan

25th November 2008, 07:13 AM

The physical evidence is that WTC 7 became a pile of smoking rubble.

We know the building was on fire. We know the fires were not fought. We know the sprinkler systems were not operable. We know where the fires were, we know how the building was constructed. Therefore, we can make a determination as to what caused the collapse.

We have no evidence at all of bombs, of thermite, of mini-nukes, of space beams, etc etc etc.

Reasonable people make conclusions based on this evidence. Truthers like you have only speculation, innuendo, and "pull it". :rolleyes:

Red, please address WC's post.

Dave Rogers

25th November 2008, 07:23 AM

What does any of this have to do with the lack of physical evidence that supports the NIST's magic column theory?

The subject of the thread, if you check the OP, is in fact the NIST report, not your perceptions of the lack of evidence supporting it. If your thread drift is acceptable, so is WildCat's.

So let's suppose that you're correct, and in the absence of physical evidence we can't conclude anything about the collapse of WTC7. The collapse therefore supports neither the conventional understanding of 9/11 nor the conspiracy theory. Why, then, are you still bothering to talk about it?

Dave

funk de fino

25th November 2008, 07:58 AM

It's like a school of red herring just took over this thread.

Post #83 please?

Pardalis

25th November 2008, 11:02 AM

RedIbis, may we have your attention please?

Red-Ibis , you might have missed this question.

What would you expect to find on col 79 that would support or refute the NIST hypothesis, or for that matter a CD hypothesis?

What physical evidence would prove controlled demolition?

jaydeehess

25th November 2008, 11:46 AM

If the theory is that Column 79 failed due to fire, and this column failure caused global collapse, I'd expect some physical evidence to back that up, perhaps the column itself. Maybe we'd see the result of such extreme heat, the stress it was under, etc. Apparently, around here, computer simulations will do instead.

I don't think you guys realize how silly it sounds when you support a theory that has no physical evidence to back up its two novel phenomena.

It's like a school of red herring just took over this thread.

Ok then, back on the topic you brought up

Actually col 79 failed due to loss of lateral bracing. It was the lateral bracing that failed due to fire damage. Loss of col 79 then led to further collapses and, ultimately, global collapse.

So all one would actually expect from col 79 would be that it buckled and failed. Now you might get some information from the girder seat or the girder itself that spanned col 79 to exterior 41(IIRC, I might have that number incorrect and its lunch time and I don't have time to check it).

However, as mentioned before that would require that the specific structural members involved be uniquely stamped and that the stamp be readable after years in use and the damage wrought by fire and physical damage on Sept 11/01.

Unless those specific structural members can be positivly identified one simply cannot gain any information from them, obviously.

Furthermore the debris itself was subjected to fire over several weeks and one could expect these particular structural members to not be on the outside or top of the debris pile. They were, except for the exterior column, well inside the building. Thus no one would be able to discern whether fire damage to that steel occured on, or after, Sept 11/01.

Now, I did ask you to be specific and instead you just through out an offhand remark. If you indeed do think things through then you must be able to put into words just what you could expect to glean from the very specific structural member(s) involved. By that I mean not only what would be looked for on the member but also how it would be positively identified and why you believe that it certainly could be positively identified.

Furthermore the above only deals with looking for physical evidence to back up the NIST computer sim. You also cast a skeptical eye at the computer sim itself yet computer sims are used in a vast array of applications in modern engineering.
If you need to cast doubt on the sim then you again will have to be more specific. Otherwise your recalcitrance to accept the NIST sim will be seen to be driven by your own personal prejudices rather than based upon any technical details.

Finally, you have your own pet theory about how the collapse of WTC 7 came about. If thermite or explosives were used you need to explain where they were placed in order to bring about the collapse that was observed to occur on Sept 11/01. I postulate that if explosives severed the connection between the girder running from col 79 to the exterior column, that global collapse would have occured in the same fashion that the NIST computer sim illustrates. If you would agree with that then you are agreeing that the loss of that girder and subsequent damage brought down WTC 7. This is the only senario in which examination of those specific structural members could bolster the contention of the use of explosives(or thermite).

If you contend that in order to get the same global collapse that explosives must have been used elsewhere in the building then have at it Red, let's see the modelling of that senario. Where were the explosives, how powerful were they, how closely does the model match the collapse seen in the videos?

So far you argue solely from incredulity and personal political prejudice. At least so far as you have shown in any post you have made here on JREF.

9/11 Chewy Defense

25th November 2008, 12:23 PM

I just love how Truthers always tend to mess up a good debate by throwing in a stupid comment like "Column 79" or other columns from the Pentagon and so on.

They're so desprite to gain a foothold that it's hilarious that they can't get a grip on reality. And honestly, who cares about those columns besides the Truthers? I know I don't because those are irrelevent. Every column had a purpose, and that purpose was destroyed on 9/11 when the buildings fell.

jaydeehess

25th November 2008, 04:20 PM

So all one would actually expect from col 79 would be that it buckled and failed. Now you might get some information from the girder seat or the girder itself that spanned col 79 to exterior 41(IIRC, I might have that number incorrect and its lunch time and I don't have time to check it).

That should be exterior column 44.

Cl1mh4224rd

25th November 2008, 05:10 PM

What does any of this have to do with the lack of physical evidence that supports the NIST's magic column theory?

Simulations are empirical evidence and are, as far as I understand it, accepted in a court of law (although not blindly, I'm sure). Truthers have neither physical evidence nor empirical evidence to support any of their rather numerous claims.

Your insistence that only the physical evidence matters and the inherent implication that the lack of such evidence for the NIST's "column 79 conclusion" puts it on equal footing as any fantasy the Truth™ Movement comes up with is rather transparent and not at all logical or intelligent.

RedIbis

25th November 2008, 07:07 PM

Since this thread is about NIST's WTC 7 report conclusions, if your post asked about controlled demolition, please don't be surprised that I will completely ignore it.

That should cancel out the majority of posts addressed to me. For the others, I will suspend all skepticism, concede defeat and accept NIST's conclusion.

This unfortunately forces me to ask a very simple question. Where's Column 79, any of the shear studs, or any other physical evidence?

Is it in Fresh Kills? Was it melted down in China? What happened to the WTC 7 material? What was the chain of custody for this evidence? Perhaps it still exists. It's not like we're looking for a single human hair to analyze the DNA.

To produce computer simulations and a hypothesis that relies so heavily on such extraordinary circumstances, even a shred of physical evidence is required before it should even be considered a theory.

Reality Believer

25th November 2008, 07:13 PM

RedIbis

25th November 2008, 07:38 PM

WTC 7 steel was not serialized or marked in any way to identify its place in the structure. If there was a pile of steel still in existence somewhere, there would be no positive way of identifying col. 79.

Well the first question is why wasn't it marked properly? If there's a steel pile in existence there is absolutely a positive way of identifying it. Please let me know when you learn of the location of such a pile.

If not, you might activate your curiosity meter.

Pardalis

25th November 2008, 07:44 PM

Well the first question is why wasn't it marked properly?

I believe RB's point is that :"WTC 7 steel was not serialized or marked in any way to identify its place in the structure" while it was assembled during the constuction of the building.

You may correct me on that, Reality Believer, if I didn't get this right.

Cl1mh4224rd

25th November 2008, 08:08 PM

Well the first question is why wasn't it marked properly?

Do you have evidence that not marking each member's location in the building is improper?

orphia nay

25th November 2008, 08:42 PM

Who was the truther here who would settle for nothing less than a replica WTC be built and a 767 flown into it to see if it would collapse?

Tanabear, if my memory serves me. I recall seeing him say that a couple of times.

[searching...]

Yep, tanabear. And you nominated him for a Stundie in August, which he well deserved. :D

Wrong. As I wrote previously, "I've stated on previous occasions what it would require to falsify my ideas regarding 9/11. Someone needs to demolish a steel-frame high-rise with impact damage and fire and it's destruction needs to mirror the collapse of WTC1 and 2(crush-down/crush-up) and WTC7(implosion). Or is the experimental method to rigorous for those who believe the official story?"

So if all the demolition experts in the world agree with the official story, then there should be at least some who are able to demolish a steel-frame high-rise with fire and impact damage. Where can I see an example of this?

It is the believers in the official story whose beliefs are not falsifiable.

Reality Believer

25th November 2008, 08:56 PM

Well the first question is why wasn't it marked properly? If there's a steel pile in existence there is absolutely a positive way of identifying it. Please let me know when you learn of the location of such a pile.

If not, you might activate your curiosity meter.
It is a matter of preference of construction management when they built the building. The twin towers had marked steel. Each piece had individual markings. Its place could be identified within the structure by these markings.

WTC 7 was constructed under different circumstances. The steel was not marked. I don't know why, I just know this is the case. The project was managed in a different way. That is why it is moot to consider that even if they preserved the entire pile, that examining individual pieces would yeild meaningful results.

The steel is gone. There was no conceivable reason to preserve it.

Reality Believer

25th November 2008, 09:24 PM

Do you have evidence that not marking each member's location in the building is improper?
The only markings that I can think of that MIGHT be procedurally required would be "lot traceability". That would identify steel from a certain "heat lot" from the foundry so the chemical and physical properties can be traced. It is NOT tied into the position in the building, but simply the chemical and physical properties from the steel supplier.

A slab of steel that had lot #B67G might be cut up into a score of unrelated pieces, placed all over the building. Some of these pieces might even end up in different structures altogether, but each time that steel is cut and placed into a structure or assembly, it would be stamped with the lot number.

The purpose is, if there was a failure of some kind, and the chemical and physical properties are suspect, that steel lot could be traced to all the components that came from that slab or coil.

Of course there was no concern, that I know of, that the steel in WTC 7 did not meet specification, nor do I know that lot traceability was even required on this project.

So if one wanted to probe further, you would want to know if steel lot traceability was required on WTC 7, and if it was, where are the QC results for those lots. Perhaps NIST already did this. I'm sure they did. Heck, I'm a hack engineer and I thought of it!

I take this experience from oil drilling equipment, and not building construction, so the standards might be quite different.

johnny karate

25th November 2008, 09:30 PM

dtugg

25th November 2008, 09:40 PM

WildCat

25th November 2008, 10:15 PM

Tishman Realty & Construction managed the construction of the first (and second) WTC7. I urge RedIbis to contact them if he really wants to know why the steel wasn't marked in such a way that it could be identified post fire and collapse. Will he do this? I seriously doubt it.
Red's on record here as saying the extent of his investigating is asking his family and friends about 9/11. Since they live in NYC, this makes them experts or something in RedIbis world.

jaydeehess

26th November 2008, 10:40 AM

Since this thread is about NIST's WTC 7 report conclusions, if your post asked about controlled demolition, please don't be surprised that I will completely ignore it.

That should cancel out the majority of posts addressed to me.

Of the 9 short paragraphs of my post above only 2 of them concern explosives yet you fail to address the entire post.

This unfortunately forces me to ask a very simple question. Where's Column 79, any of the shear studs, or any other physical evidence?

Is it in Fresh Kills? Was it melted down in China? What happened to the WTC 7 material? What was the chain of custody for this evidence? Perhaps it still exists. It's not like we're looking for a single human hair to analyze the DNA.

To produce computer simulations and a hypothesis that relies so heavily on such extraordinary circumstances, even a shred of physical evidence is required before it should even be considered a theory.

Answered several times now. The steel used in the construction of WTC 7 was not permanenttly and uniquely marked to indicate its position in the structure. How then would one go about identifying specific parts of the building?

Why also do you focus on column 79? It failed, according to the NIST sim, by buckling after losing lateral support due to fire damage to the floor beams and cross girder. Should you not be asking instead, where those pieces are?
Column 79 was not the straw that breaks the camel's back. It was simply the first vertebrae that failed.

Btodd

26th November 2008, 12:20 PM

Truly a red herring. This thread is about NIST's WTC 7 collapse theory and whether or not you think it's necessary that they produce the key physical evidence.

Either you think physical evidence is necessary to support their theory or you don't.

That's merely a deliberate attempt to keep your ideas off the table, away from scrutiny....a method more and more Truthers have adopted over the years. "I don't have to explain what did happen, in order to know what didn't happen". If that's true, then it isn't a Truth Movement at all, but a Denial Movement.

If you do not believe WTC 7 fell due to fire, then it has an explanation...at least a plausible alternative. What is yours, if not controlled demolitions or some other method of intentional destruction by the government? If you consider those even remote possibilities, then I want to know the motive. Without one, the idea is pretty silly on its face.

When I doubt an explanation for any given phenomena, I naturally look for another one. Surely you've done this by now, and at least have something that's theoretically plausible.

1337m4n

30th November 2008, 08:08 AM

Red-Ibis , you might have missed this question.

What would you expect to find on col 79 that would support or refute the NIST hypothesis, or for that matter a CD hypothesis?

Bump.

And Red, you're the one who brought up Column 79 as "key physical evidence", so I don't want to hear any cries of "Red herring!"

1337m4n

30th November 2008, 08:13 AM

This unfortunately forces me to ask a very simple question. Where's Column 79, any of the shear studs, or any other physical evidence?

Gone. Not here. We don't have it. JREF cannot provide for your request. Is there anything else JREF can do for you? Such as providing you with contact information for the people who WOULD know this stuff? We'd be happy to if you would just ask.

1337m4n

30th November 2008, 08:16 AM

To produce computer simulations and a hypothesis that relies so heavily on such (1)extraordinary circumstances, (2)even a shred of physical evidence is required before it should even be considered a theory.

1) Please detail the "extraordinary circumstances".

2) Why?

RedIbis

30th November 2008, 08:16 AM

Bump.

And Red, you're the one who brought up Column 79 as "key physical evidence", so I don't want to hear any cries of "Red herring!"

How about the buckling from extreme heat, or evidence of thermal expansion, or how the girder to floor 13 failed. You know, basic forensic engineering.

Jonnyclueless

30th November 2008, 10:06 AM

Still no evidence of a controlled demolition eh?

Grizzly Bear

30th November 2008, 10:12 AM

How about the buckling from extreme heat, or evidence of thermal expansion, or how the girder to floor 13 failed. You know, basic forensic engineering.

I'm not quite sure why thermal expansion would have to be proven, it happens at every range of temperatures. The only variables that would need to be known are the maximum temperature differentials and the length of the structural member. from that you could find out how much the beam would expand, and eventually if you knew the engineering calcs, how much it would have deflected other structural members attached to it...

And extreme heat is really relative... steel begins to weaken at temperatures of as low as 400oC, and weakens even further with increasing temperatures. I don't know what threshold you consider to be extreme heat, but temperatures hot enough to weaken steel, and thermal expansion are both conditions that were present inside the building

jaydeehess

30th November 2008, 02:05 PM

How about the buckling from extreme heat, or evidence of thermal expansion, or how the girder to floor 13 failed. You know, basic forensic engineering.

RED Ibis,, I have pointed out several times now that the WTC 7 report never states that column 79 failed due to its buckling from heat.

Column 79 failed because it lost lateral support when the floors collapsed due to heat unduced failures..

So,,,,,,,,, once again,,,,,,,, what would you expect to find on column 79 that would support or refute this?

RedIbis

30th November 2008, 03:41 PM

RED IbisSo,,,,,,,,, once again,,,,,,,, what would you expect to find on column 79 that would support or refute this?

That it buckled due to the fire induced damage around it.

WildCat

30th November 2008, 04:48 PM

That it buckled due to the fire induced damage around it.
And how would you determine this from looking at it?

jaydeehess

30th November 2008, 04:54 PM

That it buckled due to the fire induced damage around it.

If it buckled then how would you determine that it was due to fire induced damage around it as opposed to some other causation?

RedIbis

30th November 2008, 05:44 PM

If it buckled then how would you determine that it was due to fire induced damage around it as opposed to some other causation?

This is for the forensic engineers to figure out since that is what NIST is claiming happened. This is a very unique column since it buckled due to lack of floor supports to an exterior column when it was still connected to the girders to a core column. The fact that it failed at all is an unprecedented architectural event.

twinstead

30th November 2008, 06:05 PM

jaydeehess

30th November 2008, 09:26 PM

Why on Earth should a tiny group of people, many of whom are obviously ideologically predisposed, who are not satisfied with the NIST report get to demand that forensic engineers need to investigate WTC7 or ANY additional investigation is warranted?

Let the call come from a person or organization that is respected in the engineering community and I'm all over it. Let it come from a bunch of internet forum whiners and pseudo-scientific snake oil salesmen? Nope. My tax money is better spent on something else.

Exactly!

The ASCE and the CTBUH both have none of the problems with the report that RI and the TM do.

Originally Posted by RedIbis
If the theory is that Column 79 failed due to fire, and this column failure caused global collapse
,,,,,,,,,
This unfortunately forces me to ask a very simple question. Where's Column 79, any of the shear studs, or any other physical evidence?
,,,,,,,,
How about the buckling from extreme heat, or evidence of thermal expansion, or how the girder to floor 13 failed. You know, basic forensic engineering.
,,,,,,,,,
This is for the forensic engineers to figure out since that is what NIST is claiming happened. This is a very unique column since it buckled due to lack of floor supports to an exterior column when it was still connected to the girders to a core column.

that's quite a progression there RI.

You start off assuming that NIST stated that col 79 failed directly due to fire then finally it seems, after being told several times, that NIST did not state that col 79 failed due to heating you change your tune and include the fact that the report says it failed as a result of other damages which the fires caused.

However, you fail to answer the question. YOU asked where col 79 was , demanded that it be part of the forensic evidence. YOU must therefore have some glimmer of an idea why col 79 would bolster or refute the NIST findings.
SO,,, again,,, it is your call for col 79 to be produced. I have asked why. Are you ever going to answer me or do I have to guess?

Furthermore, although col 79 might be identified by its shape and size or other characteristics, from what I gather it was not specifically marked.
Neither were the girders or beams which are much smaller than col 79 and thus would be even more difficult to positively identify.
In addition , even if they were, it would be nigh on impossible to determine if damage to them was caused by heat pre- or post-collapse.

So what we are left with is the science of materials and wadda ya know, thermal expansion of steel structural members has been studied before the WTC 7 reports. You can find references for this in the report. That is what NIST used when designing their computer models.

ETA:
Column 79 shouldn't be that hard to find, it's the buckled column that will display the effects of themal expansion at the end.
RI, you posted this today, illustrating that you still believe that col 79 must show heat damage effects.
What effects would those be?
Please tell me where in the NIST report they state that col 79 would be affected directly by the heat such that it would reveal anything other than that a fire was occuring on the 12th floor. We all know that there was a fire on the 12th floor.

It also appears that you want a specific piece of a specific column. A column that would have to have been saved for several years along with all other structural members. You are working from hindsight. To satisfy your demand the entire mass of three buildings and parts of several others would have had to be stored somewhere. Perhaps you'd have given NIST a good rate on spare storage space in your basement?
Then of course there is the catagorizing of thousands of tons of steel (you didn't want the concrete saved too, right?) More space, time and money requirements.

it was still connected to the girders to a core column.

It did not buckle towards the core columns in the direction of those girders. What would those girders do to prevent it buckling in the direction of the lost support? Are you telling us that the girder connections were designed with torsion in mind in order to resist column movement away from the girders?
Do you not think that ripping away floor girders from one side might pull the column a little bit that way? (remember the first one slipped off its seat and crashed down on the next floor, ripping the next one away)

Pardalis

30th November 2008, 09:30 PM

Clinging to a column, that's all they've got left.

jaydeehess

30th November 2008, 09:55 PM

Well, they could say that the supposed demo charges took out several floor spans thus removing lateral support from col 79 which then buckled.

That would reduce the number of explosions required even if it did then require that they adhere to the NIST sim in as much as what occured next. Given that they cannot abide giving NIST any credence at all....................................

A W Smith

1st December 2008, 01:36 AM

Clinging to a column, that's all they've got left.

column clingers and plane huggers , can ya feel the love?

RedIbis

1st December 2008, 09:09 AM

Dave Rogers

1st December 2008, 09:22 AM

So what I'm getting out of this is that most here don't think that physical evidence is required. Or if that physical evidence were presented, it wouldn't necessarily supporrt NIST's conclusions anyway, so it's not necessary.

Correct me if I'm wrong since I find this a very fascinating approach to skepticism and critical thinking.

OK, you're wrong and I'll correct you. Physical evidence would be very useful in determining how WTC7 collapsed. Given that the relevant physical evidence is not present, and - it appears - cannot be recovered, because column 79 was unidentifiable and most probably has been recycled, then we can either throw our hands in the air and lament (or rejoice, according to preference) over never being able to determine What Really Happened, or we can construct the scenario which best agrees with the other evidence available. Having done so, we form the provisional conclusion that the best fit scenario is the one closest to the actual events, pending the emergence of further evidence. What we do not do is reject the most likely scenario in favour of one specifically contradicted by the available evidence, or (even more absurdly) reject the most likely scenario, flatly refuse to construct an alternative scenario, but claim that our unwarranted rejection of the most likely scenario is proof that the actual events must fall into a particular class.

Dave

WildCat

1st December 2008, 09:31 AM

So what I'm getting out of this is that most here don't think that physical evidence is required.
The evidence shows that WTC 7 was on fire. The evidence shows that the fires were no fought. The evidence shows the fire sprinklers were not working due to no water pressure. The evidence shows the building collapsed. The evidence shows there was no sound of explosions. The evidence shows no signs of bombs, mini-nukes, thermite, space beams, etc.

You have dismissed all this evidence, why?

Or if that physical evidence were presented, it wouldn't necessarily supporrt NIST's conclusions anyway, so it's not necessary.
Can you tell us what you think the column pieces would show?

Correct me if I'm wrong since I find this a very fascinating approach to skepticism and critical thinking.
What is fascinating is you have ignored all of the evidence - every last bit of it. And after you have ignored all the evidence, you then declare there is no evidence.

This is the same MO you used in the hilarious C-Ring thread, where you refused to anmswer any direct questions and would just keep popping back from time to time declaring that there was no evidence, ignoring all that was put forth. Truly bizarre RedIbis, you are acting like a child who puts his hands over his ears and hums "I can't hear you" when confronted with things he doesn't want to hear.

It's obvious to everyone here you are not a skeptic, you have no theory, you have no evidence to counter the NIST explanation, and you also have no desire to actually educate yourself on the matter. You don't contact anyone who was on the scene, you reject expert opinion out of hand. sadly, this is the hallmark of truthers - ask questions, ignore the answers, repeat.

Good luck with that.

jaydeehess

1st December 2008, 11:34 AM

.....Correct me if I'm wrong since I find this a very fascinating approach to skepticism and critical thinking.

I'll add also that you are wrong.

So what I'm getting out of this is that most here don't think that physical evidence is required. .........

What we are saying is that having the steel structural members might or might not have helped determine what exactly happened.
Your pet bugaboo, column 79, specifically may well have provided no information at all due damage that occured after collapse initiation and post collapse heating IF one could specfically identify column 79 and the section of column 79 at the level in question.

However, having the steel is not absolutly required in order to arrive at some logical and technically valid hypothisis on how the building collapsed. Computer sims are used to design aircraft that do not fall out of the sky on their first flights. They are used to design buildings now too. They are quite reliable in predicting structural behaviour.

Given the Herculean task that would have been; catalogueing each piece of steel, identifying its location in the building(s), and storing the entire building until the computer sims came up with a specific item to investiagte, it is little wonder that this was not undertaken..

Or if that physical evidence were presented, it wouldn't necessarily supporrt NIST's conclusions anyway, so it's not necessary.

Where did you get that from?
If you mean that it may have been a enormous waste of time and money to save the entire building then yes, it would not have been useful. Not useful would , in retrospect certainly mean unneccessary.

If you mean to characterize the finding of contradictory evidence to the NIST hypothisis as unneccessary then by all means tell us where anyone said that.
I asked you what you would expect to find on col 79 that would bolster or refute the NIST hypothisis. If some pertinent information could be gleaned from col 79 it would do one or the other.
You still have not deemed it worthy of much of an answer.

RedIbis

1st December 2008, 12:10 PM

Jay,
A computer simulation is only as good as those who are inputting the data. Physical evidence is much more reliable. You wouldn't have to wonder if Column 79 would or wouldn't help us determine the cause if we had it in front of us.

No physical evidence = speculation. At least you were correct in calling NIST's conclusions hypothetical since there is no physical evidence to support it and cannot therefore, be considered theoretical.

Pardalis

1st December 2008, 12:22 PM

No physical evidence = speculation. At least you were correct in calling NIST's conclusions hypothetical since there is no physical evidence to support it and cannot therefore, be considered theoretical.

What about the Truth Movement's theories? Do they have physical evidence to back up their assertions?

GStan

1st December 2008, 12:29 PM

Jay,
A computer simulation is only as good as those who are inputting the data. Physical evidence is much more reliable. You wouldn't have to wonder if Column 79 would or wouldn't help us determine the cause if we had it in front of us.

No physical evidence = speculation. At least you were correct in calling NIST's conclusions hypothetical since there is no physical evidence to support it and cannot therefore, be considered theoretical.

By this standard, any claim that the building ever existed at all would have to be considered speculation, a hypothetical conclusion, since there is no physical evidence to support it.

Pardalis

1st December 2008, 12:35 PM

Red is the perfect denier. By not taking a stand, he allows for these events to forever be disputed, any theory is as good as the other. One thing missing and the whole thing is up for grabs, even if the sum of all the available evidence leads to thinking the building collapsed naturally, if one column hasn't been identified therefore any theory that challenges the whole story is equally valid. :rolleyes:

It's the "no holes, no Holocaust" fallacy.

A W Smith

1st December 2008, 12:40 PM

jhunter1163

1st December 2008, 12:41 PM

Could someone calculate how much more explosive would be required to knock down a building if it wasn't gutted out first? Conventional demo prep takes out all the interior walls and cuts the bearing members to the point that the building is barely standing. My feeling is that if that wasn't done, there wouldn't be a window intact in lower Manhattan when [eeeeeevil voice] They [/eeeeeevil voice] pushed the button.

RedIbis

1st December 2008, 12:47 PM

By this standard, any claim that the building ever existed at all would have to be considered speculation, a hypothetical conclusion, since there is no physical evidence to support it.

Well that's entirely incorrect since there were steel samples recovered from WTC 7, just not any that support NIST's hypothesis.

GStan

1st December 2008, 01:12 PM

Well that's entirely incorrect since there were steel samples recovered from WTC 7, just not any that support NIST's hypothesis.

Ok, I'll play along. Lets say that the only physical evidence available at all, that is, physical evidence that would support any hypothesis, is the steel samples recovered from WTC7. What do you know about those samples that leads you to believe that they do not support NIST's hypothesis? Looking at them in a vacuum (as you obtusely seem to be doing), I don't think the samples would support any particular hypothesis more than another, even the Truther theories. Do the samples, on their own, support one theory over another?

Cl1mh4224rd

1st December 2008, 08:51 PM

Clinging to a column, that's all they've got left.

Classic Conspiracy of the Gaps. Before the NIST report, they were clinging to the entire building (some still are). Now, some are forced to cling to a single column.

Grizzly Bear

1st December 2008, 09:02 PM

Classic Conspiracy of the Gaps. Before the NIST report, they were clinging to the entire building (some still are). Now, some are forced to cling to a single column.
Two words... progressive collapse.......................................... .. :D

johnny karate

1st December 2008, 09:18 PM

WildCat

2nd December 2008, 07:01 AM

The evidence shows that WTC 7 was on fire. The evidence shows that the fires were no fought. The evidence shows the fire sprinklers were not working due to no water pressure. The evidence shows the building collapsed. The evidence shows there was no sound of explosions. The evidence shows no signs of bombs, mini-nukes, thermite, space beams, etc.

You have dismissed all this evidence, why?

Can you tell us what you think the column pieces would show?

What is fascinating is you have ignored all of the evidence - every last bit of it. And after you have ignored all the evidence, you then declare there is no evidence.

This is the same MO you used in the hilarious C-Ring thread, where you refused to anmswer any direct questions and would just keep popping back from time to time declaring that there was no evidence, ignoring all that was put forth. Truly bizarre RedIbis, you are acting like a child who puts his hands over his ears and hums "I can't hear you" when confronted with things he doesn't want to hear.

It's obvious to everyone here you are not a skeptic, you have no theory, you have no evidence to counter the NIST explanation, and you also have no desire to actually educate yourself on the matter. You don't contact anyone who was on the scene, you reject expert opinion out of hand. sadly, this is the hallmark of truthers - ask questions, ignore the answers, repeat.

Good luck with that.
True to form, RedIbis ignores this post.

RedIbis

2nd December 2008, 08:28 AM

True to form, RedIbis ignores this post.

Just post a reference to the physical evidence used to support the NIST hypothesis. Otherwise, try to keep your incessant whining brief.

GStan

2nd December 2008, 08:36 AM

Ok, I'll play along. Lets say that the only physical evidence available at all, that is, physical evidence that would support any hypothesis, is the steel samples recovered from WTC7. What do you know about those samples that leads you to believe that they do not support NIST's hypothesis? Looking at them in a vacuum (as you obtusely seem to be doing), I don't think the samples would support any particular hypothesis more than another, even the Truther theories. Do the samples, on their own, support one theory over another?

Come on Red. You are the one demanding physical evidence. You are the one who stated that the physical evidence consists of the pieces of steel recovered from WTC7. Now what do you know about these pieces of steel that leads you to believe that they do not support NIST's hypothesis? What hypothesis do they support?

WildCat

2nd December 2008, 08:42 AM

Just post a reference to the physical evidence used to support the NIST hypothesis. Otherwise, try to keep your incessant whining brief.
You ignore the evidence we do have, and demand evidence we don't have. You can't even explain what would support or refute NIST if you did have your precious Column 79.

This is why you have the reputation you have here Red - you are intellectually dishonest and have no interest at all in any evidence except that which you can't have.

RedIbis

2nd December 2008, 10:20 AM

You ignore the evidence we do have, and demand evidence we don't have. You can't even explain what would support or refute NIST if you did have your precious Column 79.

This is why you have the reputation you have here Red - you are intellectually dishonest and have no interest at all in any evidence except that which you can't have.

I didn't realize I have a reputation here. You might be surprised to learn that I have received many kind messages from members with whom I've disagreed but still are friendly, mature and encouraging.

Jonnyclueless

2nd December 2008, 11:37 AM

Jay,
A computer simulation is only as good as those who are inputting the data. Physical evidence is much more reliable. You wouldn't have to wonder if Column 79 would or wouldn't help us determine the cause if we had it in front of us.

No physical evidence = speculation. At least you were correct in calling NIST's conclusions hypothetical since there is no physical evidence to support it and cannot therefore, be considered theoretical.

Given not having physical evidence, the best hypothesis is the best way to go. When no physical evidence is available, what them becomes the most reliable evidence? Clearly your idea is that without physical evidence, you can then just dismiss any research you want and inject pure conjecture that isn't even based on research or testing. And conjecture that isn't even plausible.

rwguinn

2nd December 2008, 11:52 AM

Given not having physical evidence, the best hypothesis is the best way to go. When no physical evidence is available, what them becomes the most reliable evidence? Clearly your idea is that without physical evidence, you can then just dismiss any research you want and inject pure conjecture that isn't even based on research or testing. And conjecture that isn't even plausible.

Give any competent Civil/Structural/Mechanical engineer a beam or even a truss and ask him what will happen to it under any number of conditions of load, restraint, deflection, temperature--or combinations thereof, and he can tell you, with >95% accuracy--if he knows what the material is and the method used to put it together. He/she can do all this without ever actually handling the material or even testing it himself.
This is due to thousands of years of testing to failure various materials and and structures in any conceivable configuration.
Amazingly enough, stuff we build with reacts the same way, every time, to the same conditions. Variations do occur--especially with natural materials (wood, stone, even concrete), which is why the 95%.
There are huge volumes available that do nothing but give material properties!

Heiwa

2nd December 2008, 12:30 PM

jaydeehess

2nd December 2008, 01:01 PM

I made a FEA (or actually just a beam model) of WTC7, loaded it with static weights, etc. and found it was a good, solid structure. Nothing wrong with US building standards and FoS >3. Low stresses everywhere! <30% yield.

Then I removed a part of the famous column no. 79 between floors 11/13 ... and asked the PC to re-analyse and nothing really happened. Of course stresses in adjacent primary columns increased 25% and local stresses in beams above increased 50% ... but that was expected. It is what happens when you cut a column. With FoS >3 we are still very safe, though! In the elastic range everywhere.

No collapse will start due to removing part of a column. You can do it in several places, actually! Nothing happens! WTC7 has plenty of redundancy.

For more info, see http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist7.htm .

Conclusion! The perpetrators of 9/11 must have great influence at NIST because why would NIST otherwise produce such a rubbish WFT7 Final report? Is this Shyam Saunder a terrorist?

yeah, yeah, yeah, all the personell at NIST are either bought off. threatened or 'in-on-it'.............

Did you just remove column 79 or did you actually model what the NIST report hypthisises as having occured? That is that the floor beams and girders splipped away from their seats and crashed through the flooring below removing several floor's worth of lateral support from column 79?

Since you are familiar with the use of lateral support you also incorporated this loss of several floor's worth of loss into your FEA. No, you did not. Atleast its not even mentioned on your link. BTW that link also does not show this supposed FEA unless by "finite" you mean 'extremely limited'

Now, who do you think we will believe is competant to do a proper job of such an FEA, NIST with a phalanx of engineers with relevent training and experience, or you who cannot seem to understand basic physics sometimes and who apparently has training in naval engineering?

jaydeehess

2nd December 2008, 01:15 PM

Jay,
A computer simulation is only as good as those who are inputting the data. Physical evidence is much more reliable. You wouldn't have to wonder if Column 79 would or wouldn't help us determine the cause if we had it in front of us.
Actually both would rely on the training of the investigator to come to conclusions. IF you did have col 79 what would you see that would bolster or refute the NIST hypothisis? I keep asking this RI and you keep sloughing it off. Why is that?

The FEA that NIST used contained well known and understood concepts in materials engineering. The FEA used data determined through years of analysis of the videos and the materials used in the construction of WTC 7. If you have some specific points of contention regarding the FEA then please let's hear it. The CTBUH has no problem with the global collapse. They have a specific question regarding the fashion by which the long span girder failed. If the CBTUH were to demand physical evidence they would be asking for that girder and the girder seats on col 79 and 44. The CBTUH however is not asking for physical evidence. Instead they simply would like more FEA analysis done. Go figure, the qualified people at the CBTUH want more supposedly unreliable FEA computer sims done.

No physical evidence = speculation. At least you were correct in calling NIST's conclusions hypothetical since there is no physical evidence to support it and cannot therefore, be considered theoretical.

That method of speculation works quite well in predicting the weather we will have tomorrow, the design of aircraft and a myriad of other applications. But if you wish to continue to live in a Luddite mid-20th century plane of existance we can hardly stop you.

T.A.M.

2nd December 2008, 01:38 PM

So what I'm getting out of this is that most here don't think that physical evidence is required. Or if that physical evidence were presented, it wouldn't necessarily supporrt NIST's conclusions anyway, so it's not necessary.

Correct me if I'm wrong since I find this a very fascinating approach to skepticism and critical thinking.

There are lots of theories that do not have any physical evidence to back them. That planets exist around other stars. We have indirect ways of detecting them (changes in shape of the starlight over time indicating the presents of gravity inducing, orbiting objects), but we have not actually visited the planets. Hell, we only have photos of most of the planets in our own solar system...not parts of them here on earth to confirm their existence. Fossils are but imprints of bones long gone. The list goes on.

You know my point, as I have stated before. Yes, it would be lovely to have the physical evidence to support the theory of WTC7 collapse that NIST has provided, but, IN ITS ABSENCE, we have to go with the best theory that uses other forms of VALID EVIDENCE to support it, such as computer models, video/photo evidence, witness testimony, etc... These for the most part, can be trumped by physical evidence, but that does not invalidate them in its absence. In the absence of such, we must go with what best fits...

TAM:)

jaydeehess

2nd December 2008, 01:46 PM

Our understanding of how atoms bind together is also based entirely on what RI would descibe as 'speculation'.

GStan

2nd December 2008, 01:50 PM

Our understanding of how atoms bind together is also based entirely on what RI would descibe as 'speculation'.

Ionic and covalent bonding are a total MIHOP.

boloboffin

2nd December 2008, 01:53 PM

Did we need to recover the iceberg that hit the Titanic to know what caused it to sink?

jaydeehess

2nd December 2008, 04:23 PM

Ionic and covalent bonding are a total MIHOP.

That too:D

I was actually thinking about the weak and strong nuclear forces but for that matter (ironic usage intended), gravity and electromagnetism would also apply.

Of course it was revealed long ago that gravity is a myth, the Earth actually sucks, or if you are to believe some posters on woo-sites, the atmosphere is responsible for the effect we call gravity.

jaydeehess

2nd December 2008, 04:24 PM

Did we need to recover the iceberg that hit the Titanic to know what caused it to sink?

,,, and it melted down well before ever reaching China.

RedIbis

2nd December 2008, 06:41 PM

And in not one of these ridiculous analogies are hundreds of tons of material left behind. There was physical evidence, now there is not.

This must be what you guys call debunking.

WildCat

2nd December 2008, 07:04 PM

And in not one of these ridiculous analogies are hundreds of tons of material left behind. There was physical evidence, now there is not.

This must be what you guys call debunking.
What's there to debunk? You haven't even made a claim as to what you think happened.

NIST made a case, no truther has yet ofered a more plausible scenario. Certainly not you.

A W Smith

2nd December 2008, 07:18 PM

And in not one of these ridiculous analogies are hundreds of tons of material left behind.

Excuse me?

Titanic? (http://64.233.169.132/search?q=cache:FucRwSHE728J:users.senet.com.au/~gittins/dimensions.html+titanic+46,328+tons&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us)
Hindenburg? (http://64.233.169.132/search?q=cache:1HMhX2BuW2EJ:www.clean-air.org/hindenberg.htm+hindenburg+236+tons&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us)
Columbia (http://64.233.169.132/search?q=cache:PKM3VZOR_DEJ:www.washingtonmonthly. com/features/2001/8004.easterbrook-fulltext.html+%222300+ton+space+shuttle+Columbia%2 2&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us)?

RedIbis

2nd December 2008, 07:56 PM

Excuse me?

Titanic? (http://64.233.169.132/search?q=cache:FucRwSHE728J:users.senet.com.au/~gittins/dimensions.html+titanic+46,328+tons&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us)
Hindenburg? (http://64.233.169.132/search?q=cache:1HMhX2BuW2EJ:www.clean-air.org/hindenberg.htm+hindenburg+236+tons&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us)
Columbia (http://64.233.169.132/search?q=cache:PKM3VZOR_DEJ:www.washingtonmonthly. com/features/2001/8004.easterbrook-fulltext.html+%222300+ton+space+shuttle+Columbia%2 2&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us)?

Titanic - still on the ocean floor, and as anyone can see for themselves, the hull is badly buckled.
Hindenburg - I didn't see it mentioned in this thread and what would even be the point of bringing it up?
Columbia - from a link on wikipedia: "Incidents of debris strikes from ice and foam causing damage during take-off were already well known, and had actually damaged orbiters, most noticeably during STS-45, STS-27, and STS-87.[21]"

These analogies all fail. Find me the collapse of a building after thermal expansion caused column failure, and single column failure caused global collapse.

Good luck on that.

Cl1mh4224rd

2nd December 2008, 08:22 PM

NIST made a case, no truther has yet ofered a more plausible scenario. Certainly not you.

To put it more plainly, RedIbis has failed to "debunk" the NIST report.

Pardalis

2nd December 2008, 08:32 PM

Find me the collapse of a building after thermal expansion caused column failure, and single column failure caused global collapse.

Good luck on that.

No holes, no Holocaust eh? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial#Unreasonable_burden_ of_proof)

Pathetic

GStan

2nd December 2008, 08:36 PM

Red does not even believe that AA77 hit the Pentagon, despite all the the plane parts that were found there and the body parts (matched by DNA testing) of passengers who were known to be on that plane, you know, the physical evidence.

Red does not care about the physical evidence. He only cares about using any possible gaps in evidence as an excuse to dismiss all the evidence that actually is available.

Grizzly Bear

2nd December 2008, 08:37 PM

Titanic - still on the ocean floor, and as anyone can see for themselves, the hull is badly buckled.

However, if we go by the reasoning you applied to WTC 7, you would require the ice burg that sunk the ship. If we apply your standard of proof you would have to name one ship that has ever been sunk by an iceburg.

Columbia - from a link on wikipedia: "Incidents of debris strikes from ice and foam causing damage during take-off were already well known, and had actually damaged orbiters, most noticeably during STS-45, STS-27, and STS-87.[21]"

Of course you are unable to apply the same method of understanding to howthermal expansion, and thermal weakening are applied concerns in engineering and architectural works. Despite being shown a demonstration (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3985095&postcount=4) of what thermal expansion can do in extreme cases, you dismiss any kind of failure influenced by thermal expansion as impossible based solely on the idea that no building has ever suffered a catastrophic failure from it before.

You ignore that the length of spanning members magnifies the effect of it, you also fail to observe that connecting components in structures aren't universally designed to handle every variety of loading conditions on the planet.

If we apply the same standard you apply to WTC 7, despite the known fears, and cases of damage foam has inflicted on a shuttle, the fact that such impacts had never before created the conditions for break up upon re-entry should make such an event impossible.

These analogies all fail. Find me the collapse of a building after thermal expansion caused column failure, and single column failure caused global collapse.

Good luck on that.Share your doubts when you get rid of that nasty predisposition you hold that lack of precedent = impossibility (appeal to common practice, or appeal to tradition, whatever you prefer to go by). I find your position rather hypocritical, given that for the space shuttle analogy:

- you appear to look at precedents in which foam break off has occurred but up until the Columbia incident had never fatally damaged the shuttle...

Why are you unable to apply the same form of analysis of the buildings?

Pardalis

2nd December 2008, 08:47 PM

Red is doing the same thing he did with flight 93, all over again:

To the very simple question of what would convince him that it crashed there, he finally muttered a semi response:
To answer your question more specifically, we would need to first find out where the wreckage (95% by CNN's account) is being stored. Can it be photographed? Can it be analyzed? Do any of the parts have serial numbers?

Same MO, same denial.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3956032#post3956032

Pardalis

2nd December 2008, 09:01 PM

Share your doubts when you get rid of that nasty predisposition you hold that lack of precedent = impossibility (appeal to common practice, or appeal to tradition, whatever you prefer to go by). I find your position rather hypocritical, given that for the space shuttle analogy:

- you appear to look at precedents in which foam break off has occurred but up until the Columbia incident had never fatally damaged the shuttle...

Why are you unable to apply the same form of analysis of the buildings?

Exactly.

Red, find me a shuttle accident besides Columbia that was caused by a piece of foam that was detached during liftoff, find me a mega boat that sunk because of an iceberg besides the Titanic, and find me one instance other than the Hindenburg where a Zeppelin crashed and burned.

Good luck

If you can't then we're perfectly allowed to assume these events didn't take place as we were told, right?

RedIbis

2nd December 2008, 09:03 PM

Red is doing the same thing he did with flight 93, all over again:

To the very simple question of what would convince him that it crashed there, he finally muttered a semi response:

Same MO, same denial.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3956032#post3956032

True, I tend to inquire of the physical evidence. You guys tend to make a lot of excuses for why it isn't available.

Pardalis

2nd December 2008, 09:05 PM

As someone pointed out earlier, where's the piece of foam that caused Columbia to explode in the atmosphere?

Was it ever found?

RedIbis

2nd December 2008, 09:08 PM

No holes, no Holocaust eh? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial#Unreasonable_burden_ of_proof)

Pathetic

Truly one of the purest examples of the strawman fallacy, and a particularly disgusting one at that.

Pardalis

2nd December 2008, 09:09 PM

Truly one of the purest examples of the strawman fallacy, and a particularly disgusting one at that.

I'm not saying you're a Holocaust denier, I'm saying you're employing the same tactic.

Denial is a dangerous thing, the sooner you realize what you are doing, the better. You're putting your mind in a dangerous place. But I see you've been at it for more than a year straight, so I have no hope for you.

jaydeehess

2nd December 2008, 09:28 PM

And in not one of these ridiculous analogies are hundreds of tons of material left behind. There was physical evidence, now there is not.

This must be what you guys call debunking.

,,,,,and I asked you where the hundreds of tons of material should have been stored until it could be determined what specific parts should be looked at. I also asked you who should pay for the catalogueing and identification of each item.

The examples provided illustrate that computer sims are valid, and that in many cases the retention of 'physical evidence' is not required to arrive at valid conclusions about causality.

You have been asked to state exactly what you believe could be gained from an enormous and expensive catalogueing and storage of hundreds of tons of material. You still are very hesitant to venture an answer.

You have been asked for specific aspects of the computer FEA that you believe may be flawed,,,,,,,,,,silence on your part.

Instead all you bring to the table is more hand waving arguements.

Pardalis

2nd December 2008, 09:31 PM

jaydeehess

2nd December 2008, 09:53 PM

Titanic - still on the ocean floor, and as anyone can see for themselves, the hull is badly buckled.

How do you know that an iceberg caused that buckling and not an explosive mounted on the hull?

Hindenburg - I didn't see it mentioned in this thread and what would even be the point of bringing it up?

The remains were not saved yet by computer sims it is now understood what most likely occured.

Columbia - from a link on wikipedia: "Incidents of debris strikes from ice and foam causing damage during take-off were already well known, and had actually damaged orbiters, most noticeably during STS-45, STS-27, and STS-87.[21]"

So until Columbia was fatally damaged by ice and foam impacts shuttles were not in danger because it had never caused a complete shuttle loss?

RI how was it determined just how that foam/ice impact caused the shuttle to burn up? Did they check out the debris and find a hole in the wing near the wheel well? No, they did not have the wing. How DID they do it? Hmmmm, must have been pure speculation.

These analogies all fail. Find me the collapse of a building after thermal expansion caused column failure, and single column failure caused global collapse.

Good luck on that.

There are a great many incidents of buckled steel caused by fire and partial collapses as a result. There were no incidents of a shuttle loss due to foam impacts until Columbia. After Columbia there was ONE example of such a loss and after 9/11/01 there was an example of a collapse due to fire of a very large steel structure.

You also misrepresent the NIST findings. Single column failure did not cause global collapse. The loss of several floors worth of lateral stability caused that global collapse.

One reason for the low number of shuttle losses is the low number of shuttles.
There are multiple instances of floor collapses due to fire. Few involve such long span large areas as in WTC 7 but that is due to the smaller number of buildings incorporating such large open spaces and the even smaller number of such that experienced major office fires. (similar to the low number of space shuttles)
.
The analogies, and IMO especially the Columbia senario, certainly do apply.

Your continued recalcitrance to even entertain the idea that NIST may be correct is, however, an epic fail driven by your political passions and prejudices.

jaydeehess

2nd December 2008, 09:55 PM

He did the same thing in the flight 93 thread, the pieces of human flesh have been carefully analyzed by forensic experts, and yet he doesn't believe the plane crashed there.

So even if they had catalogued the debris from WTC7, he would still find a way to deny the collapse.

That's because the TM finds it neccessary to mount the goalposts on a flatbed truck. That way they can claim to always be in the lead.

A W Smith

2nd December 2008, 10:03 PM

Redibis. do you accept the fact that the Columbia disaster was caused by the chunk of foam? will you even have the moral courage to admit that?

Cl1mh4224rd

2nd December 2008, 11:28 PM

Redibis. do you accept the fact that the Columbia disaster was caused by the chunk of foam? will you even have the moral courage to admit that?

He's clearly ignoring the fact that he's been caught in some pretty blatant hypocrisy by denying those examples (Titanic, Colmbia, etc.) as valid comparisons. The Columbia slip-up of his is particularly damning.

Just to lay it out for others:

WTC7 collapses due to loss of structural integrity caused by thermal expansion.
Columbia burns up in the atmosphere due to loss of structural integrity caused by foam impact.

RedIbis denies that thermal expansion could cause global collapse, because it's never happened before, and because we lack a "critical" and primary piece of physical evidence (column 79), despite acknowledging (or, at least, not denying) that thermal expansion is a known phenomenon.
RedIbis accepts that a Shuttle can burn up in the atmosphere upon reentry, despite it having never happened before, and despite our lack of a "critical" and primary piece of physical evidence (the damaged wing). He accepts this simply because impact of foam is a known phenomenon.

Really, RedIbis... you're cracking.

Heiwa

3rd December 2008, 03:05 AM

yeah, yeah, yeah, all the personell at NIST are either bought off. threatened or 'in-on-it'.............

Did you just remove column 79 or did you actually model what the NIST report hypthisises as having occured? That is that the floor beams and girders splipped away from their seats and crashed through the flooring below removing several floor's worth of lateral support from column 79?

Since you are familiar with the use of lateral support you also incorporated this loss of several floor's worth of loss into your FEA. No, you did not. Atleast its not even mentioned on your link. BTW that link also does not show this supposed FEA unless by "finite" you mean 'extremely limited'

Now, who do you think we will believe is competant to do a proper job of such an FEA, NIST with a phalanx of engineers with relevent training and experience, or you who cannot seem to understand basic physics sometimes and who apparently has training in naval engineering?

If you read my article you see that NIST suggests that the structure collapses completely, if you remove column 79 between floors 11/13. Falling debris and other local failures of floor beams/girders connected to column 79 above floors 11/13 are irrelevant. So I remove column 79 between floors 11/13 and there is no collapse! Just 6800 tons of weight carried by column 79 is redistributed to adjacent columns via floor beams/girders, as expected; the column stresses increase from <30% yield to <37.5% yield.

As every inner column is supported by four floor girders/beams at every floor level they can never lose any lateral support if column 79 fails locally. The connections are much too strong for that. They do not slip away from the adjacent columns. And if they do, no load is transmitted! The load of column 79 just drops to the ground and the rest of the structure remains standing.
Tertiary floor beams may slip off from the secondary floor girders = debris of no importance.

Yes, I think NIST is doing a lousy work. NIST doesn't know much about structural damage analysis! BTW - my education is shipbuilding = a lot of complex structural analysis = much more complicated than simple steel tower structures. I have done 100's of intact structural analysis by FEA but also some structural damage analysis, where you have to re-analyse after each failure. The latter takes time. The NIST analysis with parts flying around is just Hollywood stuff. No serious structural engineer ca re-do the NIST analysis.
Actually FEA is just structural analysis. Failures have to be treated and analysed separately and then you have to re-do the analysis, step by step. Each failure requires energy and NIST does not keep track of failures/energies, etc. Quite sad, actually.

Thus my suspicion that Shyman Sunder is a terrorist! He destroys the work of serious structural analysts!

Grizzly Bear

3rd December 2008, 07:23 AM

If you read my article ...<snip>... if you remove column 79 between floors 11/13. Falling debris and other local failures of floor beams/girders connected to column 79 above floors 11/13 are irrelevant. So I remove column 79 between floors 11/13 and there is no collapse!

Question number one; does your model account for the effects of weakened structural members from the effects of elevated temperatures? Does your model account for the effects of thermal expansion and the lateral loads which it induced on connecting components?

I see no mention of either on your write up

Just 6800 tons of weight carried by column 79 is redistributed to adjacent columns via floor beams/girders, as expected; the column stresses increase from <30% yield to <37.5% yield.
Except there's a problem which inherently affects the calculations you [supposedly] applied to the loading conditions. The model you use to base your calculations is incredibly simplified;

First off, the building was constructed on top of a substation which required the construction of three transfer trusses for the first 5 floors, these trusses carried the weight of the structure above it. Your model does not accurately represent this.

Second, your sectional drawings do not accurately represent the varied beam spans which were part of the WTC 7 structural design. Your model assumes that all floor spans are the same; THEY ARE NOT (CLICK) (http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/images/WTC7Columns_Framing_3x4Poster_HR.jpg)... large floor sections were contingent of individual columns maintaining their integrity.

Third your models do not consider either the effects of fire-induced damage or the long floor spans which would have magnified the effects of thermal expansion and therefore influenced the lateral loads applied to connections not designed for such loads.

As every inner column is supported by four floor girders/beams at every floor level they can never lose any lateral support if column 79 fails locally. The connections are much too strong for that. They do not slip away from the adjacent columns. And if they do, no load is transmitted! The load of column 79 just drops to the ground and the rest of the structure remains standing.
Your model assumes that the structural design of WTC 7 is the traditional post & beam construction, with a skeletal frame found in more traditional steel construction. This is not how WTC 7 was built; and you wonder why your aren't taken seriously?

Yes, I think NIST is doing a lousy work. NIST doesn't know much about structural damage analysis!
That's quite an interesting statement coming from an engineer who has demonstrated that his modeling of both the towers and WTC 7 is not only oversimplified, but wrong. Surely I hope you think about your own faults before lashing out accusations of lousy work, however if you have no problem with being a hypocrite then by all means, please continue.

The NIST analysis with parts flying around is just Hollywood stuff.No serious structural engineer can re-do the NIST analysis.

Appeal to ridicule noted (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html)

Thus my suspicion that Shyman Sunder is a terrorist! He destroys the work of serious structural analysts!
Your opinions of peers is irrelevant when you cannot demonstrate a better alternative. It's particularly sad when the attempt fails before it's even typed on the computer screen.

Heiwa

3rd December 2008, 10:08 AM

AA. Question number one; does your model account for the effects of weakened structural members from the effects of elevated temperatures? Does your model account for the effects of thermal expansion and the lateral loads which it induced on connecting components?

I see no mention of either on your write up

BB. Except there's a problem which inherently affects the calculations you [supposedly] applied to the loading conditions. The model you use to base your calculations is incredibly simplified;

First off, the building was constructed on top of a substation which required the construction of three transfer trusses for the first 5 floors, these trusses carried the weight of the structure above it. Your model does not accurately represent this.

CC. Second, your sectional drawings do not accurately represent the varied beam spans which were part of the WTC 7 structural design. Your model assumes that all floor spans are the same; THEY ARE NOT (CLICK) (http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/images/WTC7Columns_Framing_3x4Poster_HR.jpg)... large floor sections were contingent of individual columns maintaining their integrity.

DD. Third your models do not consider either the effects of fire-induced damage or the long floor spans which would have magnified the effects of thermal expansion and therefore influenced the lateral loads applied to connections not designed for such loads.

EE. Your model assumes that the structural design of WTC 7 is the traditional post & beam construction, with a skeletal frame found in more traditional steel construction. This is not how WTC 7 was built; and you wonder why your aren't taken seriously?

That's quite an interesting statement coming from an engineer who has demonstrated that his modeling of both the towers and WTC 7 is not only oversimplified, but wrong. Surely I hope you think about your own faults before lashing out accusations of lousy work, however if you have no problem with being a hypocrite then by all means, please continue.

Appeal to ridicule noted (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html)

Your opinions of peers is irrelevant when you cannot demonstrate a better alternative. It's particularly sad when the attempt fails before it's even typed on the computer screen.

AA. Of course not - I only remove column 79 between floors 11/13 of an intact structure ... and the structure does not collapse. NIST clearly states that removal of a piece of column 79 alone causes collapse. I find it is not true. And the temperature inside WTC7 was so low that it did not affect the properties of 99% of the primary and secondary structural parts = my model is pretty good.

BB. It is as simple as the NIST model. What is down below floor 11 is of no importance - that structure there is intact all the time. Nothing can damage it.

CC. How do you know? Anyway, it is only the stress in the columns before/after removal of a part of column 79 that is of interest and they are as described.

DD. ???? You do not know what you are talking about! In FEA we only analyse, step by step, the structure as it is! We start with the intact structure, then there is one failure (a part of column 79 is removed) - we re-analyse (as I do) - and if there are further failures you have to re-analyse after each failure. In my model there is no further failure after step 1.

EE. ???? WTC7 was built very strong. And it would never completely collapse if a part of column 79 between floors 11/13 was removed! I show it. NIST does not.

Conclusion. The NIST WTC7 report is false. It is 100% disinformation or just propaganda or a combination of the two. The report mentions plenty of names/persons that allegedly participated to write it. Do these clowns really exist? And if they exist - did they concur with the report or just lent their names?

You know, Grizzly Bear: In the business of psy-ops every trick is allowed. In this case a scientific report which is like a basket that you try to boil of soup in.

Open your eyes, FFS.

Pardalis

3rd December 2008, 10:27 AM

The report mentions plenty of names/persons that allegedly participated to write it. Do these clowns really exist? And if they exist - did they concur with the report or just lent their names?

You can always contact them

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/contact.htm

You know... reality.

T.A.M.

3rd December 2008, 12:43 PM

And in not one of these ridiculous analogies are hundreds of tons of material left behind. There was physical evidence, now there is not.

This must be what you guys call debunking.

So lets get it straight then Red. Your issue is NOT WITH the use of other evidence to come up with a best theory in the absence of available Physical evidence. Your beef is with the fact that the physical evidence was removed, and not catalogued and kept for future investigation?

TAM:)

Heiwa

3rd December 2008, 01:11 PM

You can always contact them

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/contact.htm

You know... reality.

I have (incl. Sunder) + Comments, etc. They never reply! Confirms my suspicion that they do not exist. No real people can write such a rubbish report! And the structural damage analysis (sic) in it. Just fantasy! Hollywood.

Did you read my (Anders Björkman) Comments at the NIST web site? Top of the list. Compare then with the NIST report.

dtugg

3rd December 2008, 01:28 PM

Heiwa, you are leading the November Stundie finals. Congrats!

jaydeehess

3rd December 2008, 01:36 PM

If you read my article you see that NIST suggests that the structure collapses completely, if you remove column 79 between floors 11/13. Falling debris and other local failures of floor beams/girders connected to column 79 above floors 11/13 are irrelevant.

If you read the NIST report you will know that NIST does not state that an instant, magical removal of part of col 79 would result in the global collapse.

If you read the NIST report then you also know that your simplified structure does not represent the way WTC 7 was constructed either.

Its a pity we do not have any other Swedish engineers to compare you to. It really brings my estimation of your country's higher education system down, and I like Sweden. I have visited Stockholm. With you though I just keep going back to seeing the Wasa and knowing that it capsized and sank on its maiden voyage because the engineers of the time just ignored the physics they should have known at the time.

jaydeehess

3rd December 2008, 01:44 PM

So lets get it straight then Red. Your issue is NOT WITH the use of other evidence to come up with a best theory in the absence of available Physical evidence. Your beef is with the fact that the physical evidence was removed, and not catalogued and kept for future investigation?

TAM:)

I have tried to address both issues for RI.

However I do not think that saying he does not have an issue with the use of other evidence is true. He just is not willing to admit that there could be any that is as 'good' as having the actual pieces involved and that absent those pieces there is no way to come up with anything other than a speculative theory at best.

As for storage and catalogueing of every piece of steel, RI seems unwilling to go down the road od suggesting how this would have been accomplished, where?, how?, how much would it cost?

UNLoVedRebel

3rd December 2008, 02:06 PM

Heiwa, you are leading the November Stundie finals. Congrats!

You means he's beating Ultima1. That's quite an accomplishment. I had my money on JihadJane's "no one claimed you can't crash a plane in d.c. building" whopper.

Grizzly Bear

3rd December 2008, 07:41 PM

AA. Of course not - I only remove column 79 between floors 11/13 of an intact structure... and the structure does not collapse.
There's your mistake, try incorporating calculations of how much the members exposed to heat would have expanded. Then calculate how much lateral force the expansion would have produced against the connecting components. How much force can a connection designed for vertical loading withstand from an a-typical lateral force? How much were the columns in and around the failure region affected by the heat induced weakening?

NIST clearly states that removal of a piece of column 79 alone causes collapse. I find it is not true. And the temperature inside WTC7 was so low that it did not affect the properties of 99% of the primary and secondary structural parts = my model is pretty good.

Your model is a misrepresentation of the structural design of the tower. Your diagram reads as a structural cross section one would expect to see of more traditional high rise construction. You can have as many things as you want or need correct, but you will never get an accurate model from deriving a result from a false comparison period.

The floor spans inside the building were not all the same lengths, as can be concluded from looking at the Typical Plan (http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/images/WTC7Columns_Framing_3x4Poster_HR.jpg). No one quadrant; north, south, east, or west, shared the same kinds of floor spans. This is a very critical mistake of you to make..

CC. How do you know?
I know, because I've seen the Typical Plan (http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/images/WTC7Columns_Framing_3x4Poster_HR.jpg) layout of each floor. NIST provides it on a silver platter.

DD. ???? You do not know what you are talking about! In FEA we only analyse, step by step, the structure as it is! We start with the intact structure, then there is one failure (a part of column 79 is removed) - we re-analyse (as I do) - and if there are further failures you have to re-analyse after each failure. In my model there is no further failure after step 1.
As I alluded to already, if the model you start with fails to properly represent the actual design, then the results that are produced will carry absolutely no weight to them.

EE. ???? WTC7 was built very strong. And it would never completely collapse if a part of column 79 between floors 11/13 was removed!
This is subjective in that it is entirely contingent upon the design of the structure. IF WTC 7 were constructed more like this (http://www.debunking911.com/steelweb.jpg) then yes I might expect only a localized failure. However WTC7 was built with certain areas in which a large section of each floor was contingent upon a single column. If I recall some columns inside WTC 7 were supporting as much as 2000 square feet of floor space. The effect of individual failures would be effectively magnified on adjacent load supporting members.

You know, Grizzly Bear: In the business of psy-ops every trick is allowed. In this case a scientific report which is like a basket that you try to boil of soup in.

Open your eyes, FFS.

Why does this remind me of all these claims that the government is omnipresent, Omnipotent, and omniscient, yet complete dunces at hiding their perfectly mastered plans and of such idiocy that laymen could spot the best defenses against discovery as if they are handed out on a silver platter?

Pardalis

3rd December 2008, 08:52 PM

I have (incl. Sunder) + Comments, etc. They never reply! Confirms my suspicion that they do not exist. No real people can write such a rubbish report! And the structural damage analysis (sic) in it. Just fantasy! Hollywood.

Did you read my (Anders Björkman) Comments at the NIST web site? Top of the list. Compare then with the NIST report.

I'm almost sorry I asked. I knew you were a special case, with the pizza boxes and all, but now you really are freaking me out.

No wonder the people at the NIST didn't respond.

Jonnyclueless

3rd December 2008, 08:56 PM

I have (incl. Sunder) + Comments, etc. They never reply! Confirms my suspicion that they do not exist. No real people can write such a rubbish report! And the structural damage analysis (sic) in it. Just fantasy! Hollywood.

Did you read my (Anders Björkman) Comments at the NIST web site? Top of the list. Compare then with the NIST report.

I believe they stated they would only address plausible things. Hence you not getting any response.

Heiwa

3rd December 2008, 09:33 PM

AA. There's your mistake, try incorporating calculations of how much the members exposed to heat would have expanded. Then calculate how much lateral force the expansion would have produced against the connecting components. How much force can a connection designed for vertical loading withstand from an a-typical lateral force? How much were the columns in and around the failure region affected by the heat induced weakening?

BB. Your model is a misrepresentation of the structural design of the tower. Your diagram reads as a structural cross section one would expect to see of more traditional high rise construction. You can have as many things as you want or need correct, but you will never get an accurate model from deriving a result from a false comparison period.

CC The floor spans inside the building were not all the same lengths, as can be concluded from looking at the Typical Plan (http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/images/WTC7Columns_Framing_3x4Poster_HR.jpg). No one quadrant; north, south, east, or west, shared the same kinds of floor spans. This is a very critical mistake of you to make..

DD. However WTC7 was built with certain areas in which a large section of each floor was contingent upon a single column. If I recall some columns inside WTC 7 were supporting as much as 2000 square feet of floor space. The effect of individual failures would be effectively magnified on adjacent load supporting members.

Why does this remind me of all these claims that the government is omnipresent, Omnipotent, and omniscient, yet complete dunces at hiding their perfectly mastered plans and of such idiocy that laymen could spot the best defenses against discovery as if they are handed out on a silver platter?

AA. Heating some secondary parts (floor girders) does not induce much stress in the primary parts (columns). The whole structure just expands in all directions. The connections are really solid and will never break due to heat. It is just an invention by NIST.

BB. Not really. The figure is just a simplification. But it helps to understand the path of the forces. A load on a floor beam is carried to a floor girder and from there to a column and down to ground. VERY SIMPLE path.

It doesn't go from one girder to another.

CC. Irrelevant. Each innner column is supported by four floor girders/beams at every floor level. Evidently the column dimensions are adjusted for different floor areas it supports.

DD. Evidently the column is adjusted for that.

No, if you read the NIST report carefully, NIST really suggests that the whole structure was dependent on ONE only column, i.e. no. 79 (an inner core column connected to two other inner core columns and two wall columns) and that by removing a part of it ... POUFF ... the whole structure collapses incl. 23 other inner core columns (they all fail simultaneously!) = no redundancy. That statement is not proven anywhere (it is ridiculous) - like most of the the other findings, e.g. that you can model a part disconnected at both ends flying around (dropping down).

How can a part of a structure be ripped off at both ends by gravity forces?

Just by looking at big pieces of junk in the rubble you see that the fractures required to produce them were not done by gravity forces.

So why does NIST produce such a rubbish report? Easy! The staff lacks moral fibre and produces something that their political overloads can accept. So it can only become unscientific garbish. Quite sad, actually.

Pardalis

3rd December 2008, 09:40 PM

Conclusion. The NIST WTC7 report is false. It is 100% disinformation or just propaganda or a combination of the two. The report mentions plenty of names/persons that allegedly participated to write it. Do these clowns really exist? And if they exist - did they concur with the report or just lent their names?

So why does NIST produce such a rubbish report? Easy! The staff lacks moral fibre and produces something that their political overloads can accept. So it can only become unscientific garbish. Quite sad, actually.

You know Heiwa, you may have a difference of opinion on the NIST's findings, this is for real engineers to decide if your doubts have any merit, but each time you close a post with you "conclusion", it's always out there, I mean way, way out there. It just doesn't follow even from your own problems with the science of the report. You're jumping to an insane conclusion, whithout any proof, and without any reason to.

You start with maybe legitimate problems with the science, and then you jump to paranoid kooky conclusions. The "the report is flawed so therefore the people who made it must not exist" shtick is not helping your credibility, it's just plain freaky.

The burden of proof you expect form NIST should apply to your own accusations of foul play. You have to find evidence of foul play, and your own interpretation of the NIST report and how flawed it is isn't proof of a conspiracy.

Heiwa

4th December 2008, 12:49 AM

The burden of proof you expect form NIST should apply to your own accusations of foul play. You have to find evidence of foul play, and your own interpretation of the NIST report and how flawed it is isn't proof of a conspiracy.

Topic is the NIST WTC7 report and I just found a serious error on page 90:

"WTC7 was prone to classic progressive collapse in the absence of debris impact and fire-induced damage when a section of Column 79 between Floors 11 and 13 was removed. The collapse sequence demonstrated a vertical and horizontal progression of failure upon removal of the Column 79 section, followed by buckling of exterior columns, which led to the collapse of the entire building."

No steel structure with 24 inner columns and 26+ wall columns (yes there are more) interconnected by solid beams at every 4 meters is prone to classic progressive collapse, whatever THAT is. Classic progressive collapse? A new invention of NIST! Has never taken place anywhere before.

And what kind of horizontal progression failures is NIST talking about. Buckling of 50+ columns? None found in the rubble!

And vertical progression of failures? Why would anything fail above? If you remove a support what's above just displaces downward. It doesn't fail.

Except in the NIST model. Parts everywhere are ripped apart at both ends and fly away in all directions - the NIST software keeps track of every failure and forces acting on completely loose parts and the pathes of the loose parts, when the model disintegrates into 10 000's of parts. Magic? No, just nonsense!

I asked NIST for details of this fantastic FEA software - to use it in analyzing structural damages in ship collisions - no reply of course. Such software does not exist!

The software NIST uses seems to be the ones used to animate Hollywood disaster movies. Thus little do with serious structural damage analysis.

Draw your own conclusions.

funk de fino

4th December 2008, 03:33 AM

Classic progressive collapse? A new invention of NIST! Has never taken place anywhere before.

Now you are just flat out lying. It disgusting actually.

Pardalis

4th December 2008, 05:23 AM

The software NIST uses seems to be the ones used to animate Hollywood disaster movies. Thus little do with serious structural damage analysis.

Draw your own conclusions.

Again, completely paranoid non sequitur.

Grizzly Bear

4th December 2008, 06:45 AM

AA. Heating some secondary parts (floor girders) does not induce much stress in the primary parts (columns). The whole structure just expands in all directions.
However, you know full well that the effects would not be uniformly distributed throughout the structure at any one particular moment in time. Not every structural member is expanding or contracting at the same time or rate at any one given period of time. That is what makes your answer invalid.

The connections are really solid and will never break due to heat.
WTC 5 would tell you otherwise:

Link 1 (http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/fig-4-21.jpg)
Link 2 (http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/fig-4-22.jpg)

that your statement is a complete falsehood. However it doesn't require heat to fail a connection, if the connection isn't designed for the type of load it receives, it's at risk of failure.

It is just an invention by NIST.
No it is not... keep your paranoia to yourself please... the level to which you take it is... concerning, to put it lightly...

BB. Not really. The figure is just a simplification. But it helps to understand the path of the forces. A load on a floor beam is carried to a floor girder and from there to a column and down to ground. VERY SIMPLE path.
This is in principal true, however you treat the building as if the structural frame is the same throughout the building, or your model reads too simply. Either revise your model or clarify it, regardless you've demonstrated that your understanding of the construction is limited, too much so for the audience you're writing to.

Just by looking at big pieces of junk in the rubble you see that the fractures required to produce them were not done by gravity forces.

Connections are the limiting factors in the design allowables. If that's all your contention is based on, I'm afraid you've simply confirmed that failures in these components can, and do occur, and nothing more.

Topic is the NIST WTC7 report and I just found a serious error on page 90:
<snip>
No steel structure with 24 inner columns and 26+ wall columns (yes there are more) interconnected by solid beams at every 4 meters is prone to classic progressive collapse, whatever THAT is. Classic progressive collapse? A new invention of NIST! Has never taken place anywhere before.

This is very concerning coming from an engineer, and a spectacular display of paranoia. An invention of NIST? You never looked up the Ronin Point plaza or the Murrah Building have you? *Face palm*

rwguinn

4th December 2008, 06:45 AM

Again, completely paranoid non sequitur.

Wait a minute--He may have something here.
The report was publisheed using Adobe, which is the exact same program used to publish Hollywood movie scripts.
In fact, it was likely written using Microsoft Word, or Word Perfect, which are the programs writers like Terry Pratchett, Tom Clancy, Gordon Dickson, and others use to write Fiction!
Damn--We're caught out!

Heiwa

4th December 2008, 10:48 AM

Now you are just flat out lying. It disgusting actually.

We are talking 3D steel column/beam structures with correct joints. No classic total collapse, ever. Just local failures - some beams overloaded. No big deal!

Heiwa

4th December 2008, 11:10 AM

However, you know full well that the effects would not be uniformly distributed throughout the structure at any one particular moment in time. Not every structural member is expanding or contracting at the same time or rate at any one given period of time. That is what makes your answer invalid.

WTC 5 would tell you otherwise:

Link 1 (http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/fig-4-21.jpg)
Link 2 (http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/fig-4-22.jpg)

that your statement is a complete falsehood. However it doesn't require heat to fail a connection, if the connection isn't designed for the type of load it receives, it's at risk of failure.

No it is not... keep your paranoia to yourself please... the level to which you take it is... concerning, to put it lightly...

This is in principal true, however you treat the building as if the structural frame is the same throughout the building, or your model reads too simply. Either revise your model or clarify it, regardless you've demonstrated that your understanding of the construction is limited, too much so for the audience you're writing to.

Connections are the limiting factors in the design allowables. If that's all your contention is based on, I'm afraid you've simply confirmed that failures in these components can, and do occur, and nothing more.

This is very concerning coming from an engineer, and a spectacular display of paranoia. An invention of NIST? You never looked up the Ronin Point plaza or the Murrah Building have you? *Face palm*

Link 1 shows an intact small column with a cut off beam. Connection looks OK. Doesn't look like primary/secondary structure though. Link 2 - two good bolted connections and one apparently ripped apart. Don't prove anything.

My model is not the same everywhere - but the static stresses are uniform. Guess why!

Looking at the WTC7 rubble you find big chunks of structure where the column is chopped off above below a solid connection and where also all four beams/girders attached to the column are chopped off away from the connection. So there are six complete fractures of this junk piece - and the joint is intact. Gravity loads cannot produce such failures!

According NIST its FEA software can not only do structural analysis but it can in addition calculate how all six fractures developed in columns/beams and how this, now loose, piece of junk displaced from where it was initially located in the structure until it was resting on ground. Software keeps track of every piece and plot/image of destruction can be stopped at any time ... and a picture be printed (included in the report). Pictures do not even look real. Hollywood stuff.

Asking for details of this magic software, NIST refuses to reply. Top secret software? No - it does not exist. I know most FEA software and many suppliers. Nobody has ever heard of the NIST software.

Sorry GB, you are fooled by NIST. BTW - me display paranoia? I am just pointing out a serious error in the NIST WTC7 report.

rwguinn

4th December 2008, 11:19 AM

So, I'm guessing here, in Heiwa's book, a NASCAR driver doesn't need to worry about a tire going flat at 200MPH, since it's only a local failure, and there are 3 other, identical tires on the car?

A W Smith

4th December 2008, 11:38 AM

Redibis. do you accept the fact that the Columbia disaster was caused by the chunk of foam? will you even have the moral courage to admit that?

Redibis? are ya there redibis? Is the above a difficult question?

RedIbis

4th December 2008, 11:46 AM

Redibis? are ya there redibis? Is the above a difficult question?

If you're going to be obnoxious, check through the thread first. I addressed why the Columbia analogy fails in post #163.

A W Smith

4th December 2008, 11:48 AM

A W Smith

4th December 2008, 11:53 AM

If you're going to be obnoxious, check through the thread first. I addressed why the Columbia analogy fails in post #163.

that post is irrelevant and doesn't answer the direct question I am asking you.

Do you accept that the foam caused the destruction of the space shuttle Columbia? yes? or no?

Grizzly Bear

4th December 2008, 11:55 AM

Link 1 shows an intact small column with a cut off beam. Connection looks OK. Doesn't look like primary/secondary structure though. Link 2 - two good bolted connections and one apparently ripped apart. Don't prove anything.
On the contrary, they demonstrate your claim that the connections had so much redundancy that they could never fail due to heat is wrong. Both diagrams are documentation of bolt failures that occurred in an internal area of WTC 5 which suffered structural failure.

Looking at the WTC7 rubble you find big chunks of structure where the column is chopped off above below a solid connection and where also all four beams/girders attached to the column are chopped off away from the connection. So there are six complete fractures of this junk piece - and the joint is intact. Gravity loads cannot produce such failures!
Guess what all 4 buildings; WTC 1, 2, 5, and 7; had in common in each of their own failures? All 4 failed primarily where the bolted connections held structural members in place. In other words, your assertions are incorrect.

Heiwa

4th December 2008, 04:35 PM

anders;

You have failed to address the loss of horizontal support for that column across multiple floors. You deny the possibility this occurred simply because you know it will cause a catastrophic failure in even your Tinkertoy model. By oversimplifying the event by just removing a segment of column you fail to address the reserve strength left by catenary action of the remaining girder connections to that column above. You are only fooling yourself.

Not at all. Column 79 is simply removed from the model between floors 11/13, i.e. beams/girders at floor 12 are disconnected from it.

What happens? The load in column 79 above floor 13 is carried by the adjacent columns (two inner and two wall) transmitted to them via the the floor beams above.

The adjacent inner colums cannot collapse due to the extra load as they are still supported by floors.

Does the adjacent wall columns suddenly collapse due to support a floor 12 being disconnected? It depends on their cross sections and how loads are transmitted to adjacent wall columns. If they collapse, unlikely, only the structure above them drops down = serious local failure. The corner of WTC7 will drop down. But it cannot affect the remainde of the structure.

dtugg

4th December 2008, 04:46 PM

Heiwa, I promise that nobody believes a word that you say. Why do you even bother?

Heiwa

4th December 2008, 04:49 PM

On the contrary, they demonstrate your claim that the connections had so much redundancy that they could never fail due to heat is wrong. Both diagrams are documentation of bolt failures that occurred in an internal area of WTC 5 which suffered structural failure.

Guess what all 4 buildings; WTC 1, 2, 5, and 7; had in common in each of their own failures? All 4 failed primarily where the bolted connections held structural members in place. In other words, your assertions are incorrect.

A connection has no redundacy - it is either intact or not. But a whole structure has redundacy. Parts/connections fail and the whole structure does not collapse.

NIST fails to produce the path of failures from the initial one to the following ones producing "classic total collapse'. NIST suggest that by just removing a part of column 79 the whole structure collapses. There is no evidence for that. I asked NIST to produce a failure path ... and they didn't. They could have at least shown 10 failures produced by removing this part of column 79 ... but they cannot. Why? Because local stress increases are much too low to produce any failures.

Another question is - who would remove an 8 meter part of column 79 in the first place. Fire? Heat? Not possible. So the famous part initiating alleged total classic collapse is still there. It might buckle, kneel, but it is still there ... and as long as it is there, nothing will collapse.

Look at the pictures in the report: 1000's of parts are ripped apart in two locations and fly in all directions (by removing a part of column 79). Cannot happen in reality. It is as simple as that. How can gravity rip apart a solid column in two locations?

A W Smith

4th December 2008, 04:51 PM

I said multiple floors Anders. multiple floors

Heiwa

4th December 2008, 05:00 PM

Heiwa, I promise that nobody believes a word that you say. Why do you even bother?

Thanks! But what's your promise worth? I am just educating you a little about real structural damage analysis. If you want to believe the NIST Hollywood nonsense, be my guest. JREF is a place to discuss science in a friendly and lively way. It is a pity that the moderator does not ban all unfriendly posters.

dtugg

4th December 2008, 05:08 PM

Thanks! But what's your promise worth? I am just educating you a little about real structural damage analysis. If you want to believe the NIST Hollywood nonsense, be my guest. JREF is a place to discuss science in a friendly and lively way. It is a pity that the moderator does not ban all unfriendly posters.

Let's just say that your analysis are not idiotic. That must mean that we will see it in the news, maybe Al Jazeera (no way you can convince me that they are covering for Bush). When is this going to happen?

T.A.M.

4th December 2008, 06:11 PM

Thanks! But what's your promise worth? I am just educating you a little about real structural damage analysis. If you want to believe the NIST Hollywood nonsense, be my guest. JREF is a place to discuss science in a friendly and lively way. It is a pity that the moderator does not ban all unfriendly posters.

Well pity no more. If you want that kind of censorship, have I got the country for you.

Tell him Bob:

Well Guy, for Heiwa, who pities that the moderators do not ban unfriendly posters, we have....THE COUNTRY OF NORTH KOREA!

Yes Heiwa, you and a friend can spend AN ETERNITY in NORTH KOREA. There you will not be able to say or write anything without govt permission!

TAM;)

rwguinn

4th December 2008, 06:37 PM

Well pity no more. If you want that kind of censorship, have I got the country for you.

Tell him Bob:

Well Guy, for Heiwa, who pities that the moderators do not ban unfriendly posters, we have....THE COUNTRY OF NORTH KOREA!

Yes Heiwa, you and a friend can spend AN ETERNITY in NORTH KOREA. There you will not be able to say or write anything without govt permission!

TAM;)

Somebody should pass on to Heiwa that we do discuss science in a lively and friendly way. Does he have any to discuss?
It's mythology presented as science where we run into problems

Jonnyclueless

4th December 2008, 08:53 PM

Thanks! But what's your promise worth? I am just educating you a little about real structural damage analysis. If you want to believe the NIST Hollywood nonsense, be my guest. JREF is a place to discuss science in a friendly and lively way. It is a pity that the moderator does not ban all unfriendly posters.

A guy who has no understanding of engineering what so ever pretending to school real engineers who really know what they are talking about is always worthy of a couple laughing dogs.

:dl: :dl: :dl:

Pardalis

5th December 2008, 12:10 AM

Bump for RedIbis

He's clearly ignoring the fact that he's been caught in some pretty blatant hypocrisy by denying those examples (Titanic, Colmbia, etc.) as valid comparisons. The Columbia slip-up of his is particularly damning.

Just to lay it out for others:

WTC7 collapses due to loss of structural integrity caused by thermal expansion.
Columbia burns up in the atmosphere due to loss of structural integrity caused by foam impact.

RedIbis denies that thermal expansion could cause global collapse, because it's never happened before, and because we lack a "critical" and primary piece of physical evidence (column 79), despite acknowledging (or, at least, not denying) that thermal expansion is a known phenomenon.
RedIbis accepts that a Shuttle can burn up in the atmosphere upon reentry, despite it having never happened before, and despite our lack of a "critical" and primary piece of physical evidence (the damaged wing). He accepts this simply because impact of foam is a known phenomenon.

Really, RedIbis... you're cracking.

GStan

5th December 2008, 07:43 AM

that post is irrelevant and doesn't answer the direct question I am asking you.

Do you accept that the foam caused the destruction of the space shuttle Columbia? yes? or no?

Red, why don't you shock everyone by answering this simple yes or no question with a yes or no. It's a nice easy 2 or 3 keystroke answer that will expend far less energy than typing out a reference back to one or more other posts in which you did not provide an answer to the question.

GStan

5th December 2008, 07:46 AM

Heiwa, I promise that nobody believes a word that you say. Why do you even bother?

:D

I swear that exact thought, almost word for word, goes through my head every time I see his username.

jaydeehess

5th December 2008, 11:45 AM

Titanic - still on the ocean floor, and as anyone can see for themselves, the hull is badly buckled.
Hindenburg - I didn't see it mentioned in this thread and what would even be the point of bringing it up?
Columbia - from a link on wikipedia: "Incidents of debris strikes from ice and foam causing damage during take-off were already well known, and had actually damaged orbiters, most noticeably during STS-45, STS-27, and STS-87.[21]"

These analogies all fail. Find me the collapse of a building after thermal expansion caused column failure, and single column failure caused global collapse.

Good luck on that.

If you're going to be obnoxious, check through the thread first. I addressed why the Columbia analogy fails in post #163.

Which I then showed how wrong you were about it not be analogous.

no extreme catastrophic results from foam/ice hits until Columbia
and no extreme catastrophic results strictly from thermal expansion due to fires in long span, large area structures until WTC 7

If your arguement is that "it has never happened before" then Columbia shows you that this is a fallacy to build an arguement upon

A W Smith

5th December 2008, 03:04 PM

Redibis. You want to rethink that "never before" in history?

http://www.fpemag.com/archives/article.asp?issue_id=27&i=153

Two large department store fires in Athens, Greece, in 1980 are documented in the paper by Kyriakos Papaioannoa, 1986.4 These fires began at 3 a.m. on Dec. 19, 1980, with arson being suspected as the cause. The Katrantzos Sport Department Store was an 8-story reinforced concrete building. Its fire started at the 7th floor and rapidly spread throughout the building, due to lack of vertical or horizontal compartmentation and the absence of sprinklers. Collected evidence indicated that the fire temperatures reached 1000°C over the 2- to 3-hour fire duration, and the firefighters concentrated on containing the fire spread to the adjacent buildings. Upon termination of these fires, it was discovered that a major part of the 5th to 8th floors had collapsed. Various other floor and column failures throughout the Katrantzos Building were also observed (see Figure 1). The cause of these failures was considered to be restraint of the differential thermal expansion of the structure that overloaded its specific elements or connections. On May 21, 1987, Sao Paulo had one of the biggest fires in Brazil, which precipitated a substantial partial collapse of the central core of the tall CESP Building 2.5 This was a 21-story office building, headquarters of the Sao Paulo Power Company (CESP), after whom the building was named. Buildings 1 and 2 of this office complex were both of reinforced concrete framing, with ribbed slab floors. These two buildings had several unique internal features and contents. Both buildings still retained their original wood forms used for pouring the concrete floor slabs, which were never removed. Low-height plywood partition walls were also used in the interiors. Approximately two hours after the beginning of the fire in CESP 2, its structural core area throughout the full building height collapsed. This collapse was attributed to the thermal expansion of the horizontal concrete T-beam frames under the elevated fire temperatures, which led to the fracture of the vertical framing elements and their connections in the middle of the building, and the consequent progressive loss of gravity load-carrying capacity (see Figure 2).

RedIbis

6th December 2008, 08:35 AM

Redibis. You want to rethink that "never before" in history?

http://www.fpemag.com/archives/article.asp?issue_id=27&i=153

We're talking about steel framed buildings, not concrete. Or maybe that's just nitpicking.

A W Smith

6th December 2008, 09:40 AM

We're talking about steel framed buildings, not concrete. Or maybe that's just nitpicking.

Well seeing as concrete expands LESS than steel. it actually hurts your case. (although they are very close)

:dl:

RedIbis

6th December 2008, 09:52 AM

Well seeing as concrete expands LESS than steel. it actually hurts your case. (although they are very close)

:dl:

So instead of admitting your false analogy and failing to provide a comparable example, you choose to post arguably, the most played out, silly gif overused on this forum.

The alternative was for you to admit the two building collapses have almost nothing in common. You went for the cornier option.

Grizzly Bear

6th December 2008, 10:11 AM

So instead of admitting your false analogy and failing to provide a comparable example, you choose to post arguably, the most played out, silly gif overused on this forum.

The alternative was for you to admit the two building collapses have almost nothing in common. You went for the cornier option.

As far as thermal expansion is concerned the example is a demonstration of exactly why it's considered in every form of construction. A point which you appear to selectively not understand. You are again playing an extension of that first time in history canard despite having your earlier hypocrisy pointed out:

* WTC7 collapses due to loss of structural integrity caused by thermal expansion.
* Columbia burns up in the atmosphere due to loss of structural integrity caused by foam impact.

* [you deny] that thermal expansion could cause global collapse, because it's never happened before, and because we lack a "critical" and primary piece of physical evidence (column 79), despite acknowledging (or, at least, not denying) that thermal expansion is a known phenomenon.
* [you accept] that a Shuttle can burn up in the atmosphere upon reentry, despite it having never happened before, and despite our lack of a "critical" and primary piece of physical evidence (the damaged wing). He accepts this simply because impact of foam is a known phenomenon.

I really am having a difficult time understanding your position with your apparent differential standards of evidence...

A W Smith

6th December 2008, 10:18 AM

Grizzly Bear

6th December 2008, 10:26 AM

Well seeing as concrete expands LESS than steel. it actually hurts your case. (although they are very close)

:dl:

Here's a good source to corroborate this too :)
(http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NTA/is_2_19/ai_n26782140)

"Structural steel members embedded in exterior masonry walls expand and contract due to temperature variations. However, steel and masonry expand at different rates. Steel experiences a volumetric change 40% to 50% greater than masonry. The volumetric change between the two systems is further enhanced when both sides of a steel beam are exposed to the exterior environment, such as a steel beam supporting masonry over an entrance portico"

WildCat

6th December 2008, 10:38 AM

Here's a good source to corroborate this too :)
(http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NTA/is_2_19/ai_n26782140)

"Structural steel members embedded in exterior masonry walls expand and contract due to temperature variations. However, steel and masonry expand at different rates. Steel experiences a volumetric change 40% to 50% greater than masonry. The volumetric change between the two systems is further enhanced when both sides of a steel beam are exposed to the exterior environment, such as a steel beam supporting masonry over an entrance portico"
I once saw a documentary on a bridge being constructed. The concrete slabs were actually on rollers on top of the steel support structure, so as the steel and concrete expanded and contracted at different rates they could simply roll past each other.

funk de fino

7th December 2008, 01:24 AM

We are talking 3D steel column/beam structures with correct joints. No classic total collapse, ever. Just local failures - some beams overloaded. No big deal!

You lied that NIST made up progressive collapse and that it had not happened before. The fact you had no more credibility to lose is pretty sad actually.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1824447b1cfcfa7614.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10770)

RedIbis

7th December 2008, 06:22 AM

You lied that NIST made up progressive collapse and that it had not happened before. The fact you had no more credibility to lose is pretty sad actually.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1824447b1cfcfa7614.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10770)

Why won't you post the link for this?

WildCat

7th December 2008, 10:36 AM

RedIbis, why do you think structural engineers aren't rushing to the truther cause?

Note to all: RedIbis won't answer this question.

dtugg

7th December 2008, 10:47 AM

RedIbis, why do you think structural engineers aren't rushing to the truther cause?

Note to all: RedIbis won't answer this question.

But they are! Haven't you ever heard of AE911Truth? They have such structural engineers as that guy who believes the towers were blown up using nuclear weapons.

jaydeehess

7th December 2008, 10:59 AM

RedIbis, why do you think structural engineers aren't rushing to the truther cause?

Note to all: RedIbis won't answer this question.

Well he cannot admit that the Columbia illustration is analogous or that steel actually can expand and affect its ability to carry a load so why would he admit that only a few loons in the engineering community bother to side with the TM?

Zipster

7th December 2008, 11:19 AM

Well he cannot admit that the Columbia illustration is analogous or that steel actually can expand and affect its ability to carry a load so why would he admit that only a few loons in the engineering community bother to side with the TM?

Does he truly believe that steel can't expand at all? If not, then I will direct his attention to many of our bridges, which are steel and concrete.

When you're driving on the road right before you get to one and after you leave it, notice how there's two steel interlocking "teeth" across the entire road with a gap in it.

Now if steel can't expand (even just through the normal temperature fluctuations during the course of a day), then why design these expansion slots to begin with?

I await Red's answer to this.

EDIT:

Picture of the expansion joints I'm talking about:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/60884421-089D-4B7A-81CB-F95AA284E2C3/0/ExpansionJoint_withcar_510.jpg http://www.schenectady.k12.ny.us/users/pattersont/IBDT%20Website/Page_Generators/ExpansionJoint.gif

http://www.henneganandassociates.com/expansion_joints.htm

News article about a bridge being shut down because of a failed expansin joint. If steel doesn't expand and these expansion joints aren't needed according to Red, then why would officials block off a bridge when one failed?
http://blog.pennlive.com/lvbreakingnews/2008/03/tatamy_bridge_closed_due_to_ex.html

Arus808

7th December 2008, 11:24 AM

Zipster

7th December 2008, 11:34 AM

And Concrete does as well. Which is whyl, if you notice on overpass freeways, you see little 'rubber' sections in between the different sections. this allows for the concrete to expand and contract during the times of day.

That is true too. Otherwise if it didn't, the steel imbedded inside it for strength would just start breaking it apart after a much lower amount of thermal expansion cycles.

Pardalis

7th December 2008, 02:12 PM

Note to all: RedIbis won't answer this question.

He reminds me of those kids in America's Funniest Videos, the ones getting caught painting the whole room with crayons, their faces all dirty with it, the mom asking "Did you do this?" and the kid says "No", expecting she doesn't notice.

All these crucial questions he didn't answer, does he really think nobody noticed?

LONGTABBER PE

7th December 2008, 02:22 PM

A guy who has no understanding of engineering what so ever pretending to school real engineers who really know what they are talking about is always worthy of a couple laughing dogs.

:dl: :dl: :dl:

I have been thinking the same thing for quite some time

Heiwa

8th December 2008, 09:17 AM

A W Smith

8th December 2008, 09:49 AM

Doesn't look like a classic total collapse to me! Left side remains standing, etc.

this doesn't look like a global collapse to me either Anders. Sections of the north and south tower still standing circles in yellow. and a few even survived the collapse in a core stairwell. Guess you cannot use that old "global" canard anymore? can ya?

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/wtc_overview_west_1-1.jpg

Heiwa

8th December 2008, 11:27 AM

this doesn't look like a global collapse to me either Anders. Sections of the north and south tower still standing circles in yellow. and a few even survived the collapse in a core stairwell. Guess you cannot use that old "global" canard anymore? can ya?

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/wtc_overview_west_1-1.jpg

Subject is WTC7 - a typical classic total collapse; whatever that is???

According NIST a typical classic total collapse is when a big steel structure with >50 solid steel columns (abt 190 m tall) on which 49 floors of total 4165 steel beams/girders are attached (>8330 horizontal connections between columns and girders/beams and unknown number of slooping beams/girders)) collapses when only one piece of a column between two floors is removed ... the whole structure then collapses at free fall speed and all structural parts or connections are cut or ripped apart ! A typical classic total collapse! Apparently a common event in USA because it is both typical and classic = happens all the time! Doesn't happen elsewhere, though!

NIST has a structural analysis software that can calculate how every part/connection is ripped apart (due overload), the energy required and how the loose part (weight, speed, forces acting on it) then flies away and lands in the rubble = typical classic total collapse.

However, it is a pity that NIST cannot produce any details about this software. Sounds magic!

I would like to test it on my structures!