WTC7 and the girder walk-off between column 79 and 44

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

Care to explain any further?

It is hard to understand guys like you, who are willing to impugn someone else's engineering abilities based on their positions or comments, without ever showing any contradictory calculations or deeper explanations themselves.

It really does seem that you are just barking in the night here and can't refute what I was saying.

Your overall conclusion is CD. Your narrow attack on part of NIST PROBABLE collapse sequence is a waste of time. The proper thing to do is present a fully documented collapse sequence of your own. In your case this collapse sequence is some unknown fantasy CD event done by unknown people to a building on fire with no fire support.

There is no need to refute your attack on NIST, your final realcddeal conclusion is nonsense, case closed. Is your fantasy super-nano-thermite, or silent fire proof explosives? Where is your fully documented work published, a draft, etc?

[A W Smith]

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

a

The Washington Monument is essentially a very large column which has no lateral support. Do you know why it doesn't overturn?

What's the Washington monument holding up?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Column

[Tony Szamboti]

Originally Posted by A W Smith

What's the Washington monument holding up?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Column

It is holding itself up, but that wasn't the point.

If you were following the conversation before commenting you would realize that it was about triforcharity claiming a column with insufficient base support was somehow analagous to column 79, and implying that as soon as lateral support is removed the column would fail.

You should go back and read the last page of the thread.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

It is holding itself up, but that wasn't the point.

If you were following the conversation before commenting you would realize that it was about triforcharity claiming a column with insufficient base support was somehow analagous to column 79, and implying that as soon as lateral support is removed the column would fail.

You should go back and read the last page of the thread.

You think column 79 can stand without lateral support. You think the Towers can stand without lateral support too. What is new?

The best part is your reference, since they call the monument a column, it is a structural column or what... http://casehistories.geoengineer.org...JGCH_1_3_3.pdf
Yep, 7 times makes it a steel column. "Column", stone to steel.

What is your probable collapse sequence to replace the now refuted by Tony NIST claim? What type of explosives and where were they placed? By who? Looks like your probable collapse sequence is easy to dismiss before you put numbers to it. Good luck, I am going to get some more beer and mow the lawn - have a great weekend finishing your paper for publishing.

[Justin39640]

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

I don't agree, the Washington Monument is essentially a hollow column made of stone and it is interesting that you don't explain why it doesn't overturn.

What about the Toronto CN tower? Are you just going to say it isn't a column? Why doesn't it overturn?

I think you, Triforcharity, and Beachnut are out of your depth here or are being coy.

The Washington monument is a complete structure. A column is part of a structure. It doesn't overturn cause an engineer who understood the difference designed it.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Justin39640

The Washington monument is a complete structure. A column is part of a structure. It doesn't overturn cause an engineer who understood the difference designed it.

It is a structure of >36,000 columns, short stubby stone columns, in a big pile. Are steel columns short stubby piles of steel?

When does rock lose it's strength in fire?

[Justin39640]

Originally Posted by beachnut

It is a structure of >36,000 columns, short stubby stone columns, in a big pile. Are steel columns short stubby piles of steel?

When does rock lose it's strength in fire?

Let's not also forget the Washington Monument is a tapered obelisk. Tony's comparison fails at the most basic levels. No simple hand calculations needed.

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

It is holding itself up, but that wasn't the point.

If you were following the conversation before commenting you would realize that it was about triforcharity claiming a column with insufficient base support was somehow analagous to column 79, and implying that as soon as lateral support is removed the column would fail.

You should go back and read the last page of the thread.

Yes or no kiddo -

Do you have evidence of controlled demolition at any of the sites on 9/11?

Put up or shut up.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

I don't agree, the Washington Monument is essentially a hollow column made of stone and it is interesting that you don't explain why it doesn't overturn.

What about the Toronto CN tower? Are you just going to say it isn't a column? Why doesn't it overturn?

I think you, Triforcharity, and Beachnut are out of your depth here or are being coy.

The Washington Monument is an obelisk


Towers aren't columns.


Why are you comparing such completely different structures to a simple column?

ETA was each of the towers a single column?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

Care to explain any further?

It is hard to understand guys like you, who are willing to impugn someone else's engineering abilities based on their positions or comments, without ever showing any contradictory calculations or deeper explanations themselves.

It really does seem that you are just barking in the night here and can't refute what I was saying.

In fact, before you embarass yourself further you should read the first paragraph of the Abstract of this discussion of the Washington Monument

http://casehistories.geoengineer.org...JGCH_1_3_3.pdf

Then while in the pdf do a search on the word "column" and see how many times it is used in reference to the monument.

You should read a little deeper:

The Washington Monument is a classical Egyptian-style four-sided obelisk topped by a pyramidion

[Tony Szamboti]

Originally Posted by tsig

You should read a little deeper:

The Washington Monument is a classical Egyptian-style four-sided obelisk topped by a pyramidion

It is amazing that the engineers who wrote that case history discussion called the Washington Monument a column many times and some <snip> here still deny it is a column. One <snip> even thinks that because it was a tapered obelisk it wasn't a column. This kind of inanity can't be made up.

It is clear that one of the reasons you guys stay anonymous is to keep from being embarassed.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

It is amazing that the engineers who wrote that case history discussion called the Washington Monument a column many times and some here still deny it is a column.

I believe it's a marker used to navigate UFO's.












(yeah this conversation is stupid)

[Tony Szamboti]

Originally Posted by beachnut

You think column 79 can stand without lateral support. You think the Towers can stand without lateral support too. What is new?

The best part is your reference, since they call the monument a column, it is a structural column or what... http://casehistories.geoengineer.org...JGCH_1_3_3.pdf
Yep, 7 times makes it a steel column. "Column", stone to steel.

What is your probable collapse sequence to replace the now refuted by Tony NIST claim? What type of explosives and where were they placed? By who? Looks like your probable collapse sequence is easy to dismiss before you put numbers to it. Good luck, I am going to get some more beer and mow the lawn - have a great weekend finishing your paper for publishing.

The Washington Monument is a self-supporting stone column and I used it as an example in regard to triforcharity's claim that without lateral support columns will automatically fall.

He apparently doesn't have a full understanding of the mechanics. You on the other hand claim to be an engineer, and you should understand why column 79 would be self-supporting and not buckle under its own weight for at least a couple hundred feet, and why it would not buckle if left unsupported for five stories with a full load on it.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

I only used the Washington Monument as an example in regard to triforcharity's claim that without lateral support columns will automatically fall.

And then you continue to argue this. Do you think this might be a reason the "truth" movement has gotten as far as it has today?

[Tony Szamboti]

Originally Posted by DGM

And then you continue to argue this. Do you think this might be a reason the "truth" movement has gotten as far as it has today?

I have tried to limit the discussion to things that are pertinent to the original reason for this thread, which concerned the proof that the claim that the girder between columns 44 and 79 could have walked off its seat was impossible.

However, there are some who have a hard time doing that here.

Your question about the truth movement is nebulous and doesn't belong in the discussion either.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

I have tried to limit the discussion to things that are pertinent to the original reason for this thread, which concerned the proof that the claim that the girder between columns 44 and 79 could have walked off its seat was impossible.

However, there are some who have a hard time doing that here.

Ignore them and prove your point and not just to the laymen (that has been the focus)

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

Your question about the truth movement is nebulous and doesn't belong in the discussion either.

Not really. This thread is a perfect example. It focuses on one small issue that has little or no hope of leading to a solution.

Until you can present a better theory you will never go anywhere. The whole aim of the "truth" movement has always been to get someone else to do the work they could do if they were actually competent(*) people involved.

Tony, It's **** or get off the pot.




* no offence to you personally.

[Tony Szamboti]

Originally Posted by DGM

Ignore them and prove your point and not just to the laymen (that has been the focus)



Not really. This thread is a perfect example. It focuses on one small issue that has little or no hope of leading to a solution.

Until you can present a better theory you will never go anywhere. The whole aim of the "truth" movement has always been to get someone else to do the work they could do if there actually competent(*) people involved.

Tony, It's **** or get off the pot.




* no offence to you personally.

Like I told you before there are submissions to NIST for correction on this issue, and although you don't think this initial focus could lead to a solution I wouldn't be so dismissive. There is more to come.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

Like I told you before there are submissions to NIST for correction on this issue, and although you don't think this initial focus could lead to a solution I wouldn't be so dismissive. There is more to come.

Do you have a link to these submissions? Do they only want clarification? They don't actually suggest an alternative theory do they?

You don't believe NIST's version, we get this. What is yours' and how is it better? This is all I'm asking. Produce a better collapse model. Ask Gage to help, he has 1600+ engineers. Is that not enough?

[Tony Szamboti]

Originally Posted by DGM

Do you have a link to these submissions? Do they only want clarification? They don't actually suggest an alternative theory do they?

No, they are formal submissions to NIST and I don't have a link. They are asking for correction in some cases which will lead to a different theory.

What you will see down the road is published Discussions of a NIST team article which was published this past January about WTC 7.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

What you will see down the road is published Discussions of a NIST team article which was published this past January about WTC 7.

Published where? (I have access to most journals).

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

It is clear that one of the reasons you guys stay anonymous is to keep from being embarassed.

Nobody's mooning anyone here.

[000063]

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

It is a reality that column 79 could go five stories without lateral support with the load on it and it can be shown with conservative AISC calculations.

Do you care to show some calculations that it couldn't?

Attempt to shift the burden of proof.

Ergo tried something similar recently. He said his claim was true, his opposition knew it, and if they didn't provide the evidence of his claim, they were lying. He must've realized that was ridiculous even by his standards, because he never came near that thread again, IIRC.

Originally Posted by ergo

But my point being, so what if column 79 fails? It still will not lead to the rapid global collapse that we see, with the building sinking as if demo'ed or as if into quicksand.

We don't see a global collapse. We see a progressive one. The East Penthouse collapsed first, then the rest of the joint. The collapse progressed from one place to another.

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

I never said I don't trust anything in the NIST report. I do think the mechanisms for collapse of WTC 7 that they espouse and the conclusions are incorrect.

There are times in life when one has to be able to sift through shades of gray and separate the wheat from the chaff using a sound basis. The fire simulation for the columns makes sense. Do you think the columns got hotter? if so, on what basis?

There was a large fire nearby.

Originally Posted by lexicon008

Noah, i'm just pointing something out to you...

What's the statement equivalent of JAQing off? "I'm just saying?"

Originally Posted by lexicon008

The question here is did NIST prove that for the first time in history fire caused the collapse of a steel framed skyscraper.....

Please don't. You responded to my post, directed at Clayton, about all the "firsts" which would be required for a CD.

How many of those steel-framed skyscrapers were set on fire by another building collapsing on them? How many of those buildings had been hit by an airplane and been on fire for an hour or more?

[000063]

Originally Posted by ergo

What "engineering technical issue"? As Tony has already pointed out, you are merely trying to muddy the waters with a bogus, "Fog of War"-style analysis on a catastrophic structural failure. You're basically just closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and going, "la la la la la... it was so CHAOTIC that day! It's IMPOSSIBLE to know what could and could not have`been happening!"

That is your entire argument. Apart from your constant efforts to invent some new "burden of proof" while ignoring your own.

Which, I note, does not address Ozeco's claim that Tony hasn't proved his own argument.

Quote:

No, you're just making **** up. Tony has stated he uses the same assumptions as NIST does. If you have problems with them, why aren't you complaining to NIST?

Even if Tony uses the same premises as NIST, the argument he made from them is what Ozeco addressed. Premises+logic=conclusion.

I like how you don't actually address the techical parts of Ozeco's posts, the very parts you decry as "bogus". You don't know they're bogus, because you can't understand them, just like you can't understand sundials or the difference between a progressive and global collapse.

And you seem to have no problem with Truthers making judgements about the "catastrophic structural failure" by looking at nothing more than photos of the exterior of the building.

Originally Posted by ergo

As I suspected, there's nothing in your post 151 because there's nothing in any of your posts in this thread, and indeed for quite some time. Maybe the entire time. Maybe you've never actually said anything useful, and I've just been giving you the benefit of the doubt all this time because you claim to have engineering training.

Amazing how no one but Truthers ever seems to know anything, isn't it?

Quote:

Ozeco, several pages of text have occurred between your post 151 and now. Are you capable of explaining what it is that you're waiting for that hasn't already been addressed several times over? The "things were too chaotic! We can never know everything that happened!" theory is not an engineering analysis. It also has to be the most pathetic, last-ditch escape argument I've yet seen from your side. And that's saying a lot. It's not so much that your "arguments" are not even arguments, but that you assume so little intelligence in others that you actually think people are going to believe you are saying something. Seriously: who do you think you're kidding?

Incredulity is not evidence, no matter how much you close your eyes and wish really hard.

I find it amusing that you think it is, though. Who do you think you're kidding?

[000063]

Originally Posted by beachnut

Why, because the Washington monument is not a very large column, it is a building with lateral support, 36,491 blocks. How many blocks of stone and marble are used to form columns of WTC 7? Classic 911 truth perpetual members.

This is it. Are you going to publish this with your NIST rebuttal in a journal? This will be great.

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

I don't agree, the Washington Monument is essentially a hollow column made of stone and it is interesting that you don't explain why it doesn't overturn.

What about the Toronto CN tower? Are you just going to say it isn't a column? Why doesn't it overturn?

I think you, Triforcharity, and Beachnut are out of your depth here or are being coy.

You are either biased beyond any credibility or lying. Beachnut answered your question in detail. That's not "being coy".

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

...
In fact, before you embarass yourself further you should read the first paragraph of the Abstract of this discussion of the Washington Monument....

That is about two steps away from any actual content.

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

It is amazing that the engineers who wrote that case history discussion called the Washington Monument a column many times and some <snip> here still deny it is a column. One <snip> even thinks that because it was a tapered obelisk it wasn't a column. This kind of inanity can't be made up.

Indeed.

Just to be clear, have you been using column in the technical sense or the less precise conversational one? Because they're very different.

Quote:

It is clear that one of the reasons you guys stay anonymous is to keep from being embarassed.

What about Ergo and Lexicon008? What about ChrisMohr? Also, ad hominem.

I like how you've successfully dragged the thread off topic from the evidence Ozeco says you don't have to an irrelevant discussion about whether the WM is a column or not, and you're still losing.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by 000063

You are either biased beyond any credibility or lying. Beachnut answered your question in detail. That's not "being coy".


That is about two steps away from any actual content.


Indeed.

Just to be clear, have you been using column in the technical sense or the less precise conversational one? Because they're very different.

What about Ergo and Lexicon008? What about ChrisMohr? Also, ad hominem.

I like how you've successfully dragged the thread off topic from the evidence Ozeco says you don't have to an irrelevant discussion about whether the WM is a column or not, and you're still losing.

Apparently the Column of Trajan was a steel, load carrying structural member.

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by pgimeno

No, it is as valid as asking you to consider the factors that come necessarily into play, which you're neglecting to do, in order to make a valid proof.

Precisely.

And I have not the slightest intention of accepting "reverse burden of proof" no matter how many times Tony evades the challenge OR ergo misrepresents it.

The claim is Tony's.

He has failed to support it by taking into account all relevant factors.

End of discussion.

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by 000063

...I like how you've successfully dragged the thread off topic from the evidence Ozeco says you don't have to an irrelevant discussion about whether the WM is a column or not, and you're still losing.

Actually it is sad to see the truth movement represented in this way by unwinnable false claims related to CD...

...whilst there could still be legitimate issues worthy of discussion in the arena of 9/11 Political decision making.

But I have made that observation many times over the years - to no avail.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

I don't agree, the Washington Monument is essentially a hollow column made of stone and it is interesting that you don't explain why it doesn't overturn.

What about the Toronto CN tower? Are you just going to say it isn't a column? Why doesn't it overturn?

I think you, Triforcharity, and Beachnut are out of your depth here or are being coy.

You're not understanding. Sorry, I wasn't clear. Don't nail them together face to face, nail them together so that the 2x4's stand 40' tall. Not 6" wide.

And the reason the CN Tower, and the Washington Monument are not columns. Sorry, you're wrong. They're structures. Specifically designed to stand without significant lateral support. Just the opposite of a column. They require lateral support.

Wow, and you're an engineer? Really?

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

It is amazing that the engineers who wrote that case history discussion called the Washington Monument a column many times and some <snip> still deny it is a column. One <snip> even thinks that because it was a tapered obelisk it wasn't a column. This kind of inanity can't be made up.

It is clear that one of the reasons you guys stay anonymous is to keep from being embarassed.

The WM is in the SHAPE of a column, correct. However, to call it specifically a COLUMN, is wrong.

Do you need the definition of a column?

Is a column usually 24.38 m square? Really? If so, it should hold the record for the biggest column on earth.

The reason many of us don't use our real names, is because of psychos. You, Sarns, Lawyer all demand to know people's real names when you're starting to lose an argument. Guess what? You're losing again.

[A W Smith]

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

Like I told you before there are submissions to NIST for correction on this issue, and although you don't think this initial focus could lead to a solution I wouldn't be so dismissive. There is more to come.

If you made a submission for correction to NIST that WTC was a "Real CD Deal" than you are [wrong]. And its as simple as that.

Edited by Tricky:

Edited for civility.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

You're not understanding. Sorry, I wasn't clear. Don't nail them together face to face, nail them together so that the 2x4's stand 40' tall. Not 6" wide.

And the reason the CN Tower, and the Washington Monument are not columns. Sorry, you're wrong. They're structures. Specifically designed to stand without significant lateral support. Just the opposite of a column. They require lateral support.

Wow, and you're an engineer? Really?

I understood what you meant, I think that the misunderstanding was intentional.

[ergo]

Originally Posted by ozeco41

And I have not the slightest intention of accepting "reverse burden of proof" no matter how many times Tony evades the challenge OR ergo misrepresents it.

The claim is Tony's.

What claim?

Quote:

He has failed to support it by taking into account all relevant factors.

What are these relevant factors? Why, after 49 pages, are you still unable to articulate them? If you have a problem with the factors NIST counted in, why are you complaining to Tony about it? How can you hope to provide a credible critique without identifying what it is that you claim is missing in Tony's analysis?

The reason you can't name these missing "relevant factors" is because you don't know what they are, and you're making **** up, in the simplistic hope that no one will actually question you about it.

End of discussion.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

The Washington Monument is a self-supporting stone column and I used it as an example in regard to triforcharity's claim that without lateral support columns will automatically fall.

He apparently doesn't have a full understanding of the mechanics. You on the other hand claim to be an engineer, and you should understand why column 79 would be self-supporting and not buckle under its own weight for at least a couple hundred feet, and why it would not buckle if left unsupported for five stories with a full load on it.

Got some math to go with this? A paper? Anything
more
than
a
short
column
of
words?

... A column of water. A column of figures. ... they even called the Washington monument a column when it was 55 meters tall, etc. etc. When they added to the 55 meters of WM, was it 2 columns, or 36,000 short columns. I will have one from column one, one from column two, and ... You should be ignoring people,
not
making
failed
analogies;
Try finding evidence for your probable cause of the WTC 7 failure, CD, let alone your claims of CD for WTC 1 and WTC 2. Why not add 5 and 6, which had failures from fire, oops, you would say CD.

I await your publication of the big paper proving NIST probable cause (as in probable, ie - supported by evidence strong enough to establish presumption but not proof; funny since you have proof the not proved is ... !) is proved wrong. Can we prove something which is not proved, can we prove that to be wrong, when it was never proved to be true - as in probable? Is this JREF? Is this funny stuff? Would it be funny because I am an alleged engineer/pilot/etc... You should be working on your claims instead of worrying about stones stacked 555 feet, and me, since I know your overall claim about 911 is nonsense.

Exactly what building was the column, the Washington Monument holding up? Can a column be made up of 36,000 blocks of rocks? Yes, you can have columns of numbers too... Like a column of water?

Wait, why not share the submission of the stuff you guys sent to NIST? I love the, "there is more to come". The big smoking gun is coming! Jones calls it, the "loaded gun" - he can predict CTs. Why can't you share what you have now?

[MarkLindeman]

Originally Posted by ergo

What are these relevant factors? Why, after 49 pages, are you still unable to articulate them?

You mean, articulate them to your satisfaction? Yeah, that'll be the day.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by tsig

I understood what you meant, I think that the misunderstanding was intentional.

Thanks. I thought it was understandable to anyone reading.

[ergo]

Originally Posted by MarkLindeman

You mean, articulate them to your satisfaction? Yeah, that'll be the day.

No, even just pointing to the post where ozeco41 - or anyone else - identifies the other relevant factors that both NIST and Tony missed in their analyses. Considering all the posts ozeco has contributed to this thread, and the number of times he's stated that the WTC7 failure initiation is not due to a single factor, surely he could have taken three minutes to outline what these other factors are? I mean, even just off the top of his head, since he obviously has a few in mind?

And then provide some credible analysis as to why they're relevant.

That would be a very baseline expectation required of him for what he is claiming here.

[NoahFence]

Quote:

Wow, and you're an engineer? Really?

I think we're past the point of believing that. Degree by teh googlelz no doubt.

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by ergo

No, even just pointing to the post where ozeco41 - or anyone else - identifies the other relevant factors that both NIST and Tony missed in their analyses. Considering all the posts ozeco has contributed to this thread, and the number of times he's stated that the WTC7 failure initiation is not due to a single factor, surely he could have taken three minutes to outline what these other factors are? I mean, even just off the top of his head, since he obviously has a few in mind?

And then provide some credible analysis as to why they're relevant.

That would be a very baseline expectation required of him for what he is claiming here.

Gee, ergo, didn't take me long to find some Ozeco41 gems that hadn't been addressed. Are you asking for a level of analysis similar to the prooving why linear analysis is sufficient, which has yet to be offerred up.

Originally Posted by ozeco41

Quite possibly -- but the single factor which may be the crux is not the whole of the hypothesis.

And you merely repeat the following without answering my two brief questions which were spot on target.
It appears that your mindset is locked on partial truth, partial understanding. You keep missing the point I make when I refer to "single factor".

Originally Posted by ozeco41

Whoever "we" is why should anyone care about this minute detail?

Sure several members are prepared to humour C7 - he's done the mileage and gets a bit of tolerance. But the issue is of no significance other than as a truther's or troll's derail evasion.

The real issue is that some folk are trying to claim demolition in some form or other.

It is now 2012 so any of them with intelligence must know that there was no demolition. (I'll rephrase it for the benefit of those who are pedantic about "scientific terminology" -- "no one has so far produced a supportable reasoned claim for demolition".) And, since the evidence against demolition is overwhelming, we get the evasion tactics such as discussing round in circles on little bits of trivia where some truther/troll or other has located what he or she thinks is an anomaly.

The real world is full of anomalies. The reality for WTC7 is that the collapse sequence saw the east penthouse fall into the inside of the building then the outer facades fell. So column 79 and a lot more of the internal structure had failed. What more do we need to know?

If you are trying to assert that there was CD start with the real issues:
What structural members were cut to create the collapse mechanism?
What was used to cut those members?
When was that cutting material put in place?
How was that activity done under secrecy?
Why was there no evidence at the time of the collapse?
Why was there no evidence after the collapse?

Those will do for starters. And no one from the so called truth movement has been able or willing to put forward a reasoned explanation taking into account those and all the other critical factors.

That is why we are here discussing trivia. Attempting to discredit NIST. Reading all these pages of truther oriented half truths and distortions. Because no truther can support a CD claim.

So why don't you stop the posturing about challenges to debate trivia and put up a real claim. You would make history. Go for it! It would truly show that you were "...genuinley [sic] trying to get to the truth..."

Originally Posted by ozeco41

You seem to have two objectives confused - a situation which I have met many times in 9/11 discussion.

What truth are you searching for:
A) Whether or not there was CD involved in the collapse of WTC7? OR
B) Demonstrate that NIST was wrong on something or other.
Those two are separable and trying to address both in the same process will only lead to confusion. (Granted causing confusion could be intentional if the objective was trolling. )

To my mind the primary objective is "A)" - "Was there CD?"

If that is your real objective then separate your thinking from the confusion as to whether NIST was right or wrong. Approach the topic from zero base and consider the evidence.

At some stage you will have to address the six questions I posted in my previous comments - or other equivalent questions:

You also seem to have your approach to solving the problem backwards - again a situation which I have met many times in 9/11 discussion.

You are starting from details before you have even resolved the context. So there is no way to know whether the details are relevant or not. Come at it the other way and take those six questions first before you even think about the NIST right or wrong question. It is a question of saving mental energy. If you have no answer to all those six (or equivalent ones) then there is no point in worrying about whether NIST was right or wrong. The NIST "error" if there was one simply remains as an unexplained anomaly.

BTW That is the path I took personally some years ago (2007) in regard to WTC collapses. For WTC1 & WTC2 I can explain the collapse mechanisms and show to my own professional satisfaction that there was no need for CD. I cannot prove that there was no CD even though it was not needed - but consideration of those six questions in the scientific mode says "CD was highly extremely near enough to infinitely unlikely" OR in layman's terms "CD was impossible". And I prefer layman terminology for ease of typing.

Please do continue with your "sciencey Truther" hero worship and attack on all those who dare question why your emporer has no clothes on, however.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by ergo

...
That would be a very baseline expectation required of him for what he is claiming here.

How was 79 connected to 44?

[ergo]

Originally Posted by LSSBB

Gee, ergo, didn't take me long to find some Ozeco41 gems that hadn't been addressed. Are you asking for a level of analysis similar to the prooving why linear analysis is sufficient, which has yet to be offerred uup



Please do continue with your "sciencey Truther" hero worship and attack on all those who dare question why your emporer has no clothes on, however.

LSSBB, I don't think you've understood, or you would immediately recognize that there is no identification in any of those posts you've quoted of what these "missing relevant factors" are.