ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 7wtc , wtc7 , wtc7 collapse

Reply
Old 9th November 2012, 07:01 AM   #401
Gamolon
Graduate Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,644
Originally Posted by Animal View Post
Interesting, because I would never use revisions per sheet and have always used them per revision issue.
In my experience, it was both.

I'll give an example.

A steel mill client comes to us and wants to have a new ladle dryer installed in an area which currently has none present. Ladles have a refractory lining that needs to be replaced at times. The dryers are used to dry the lining after installation (in addition to also preheating ladles).

Ladle:


Ladle dryer/preheater. This unit is lowered over the top of the ladle to dry it or preheat it:


We need to supply the dryer with natural gas for example. As a designer, I would go to the client's drawing storage room and pull all the existing drawings which are associated with this area. I find one plan drawing of the area the dryer where the actual dryer will be be installed, drawing #1000. I find out that the existing natural gas line I need to tap into in order to supply the dryer is in an adjacent area to the left (west) of drawing #1000 and is drawing #900. I also need to create a new drawing for a couple of details. This will be drawing #3000.

I pull both existing drawings (#900 and #1000). I find that drawing #900 with the existing natural gas supply line I need to tap into has an existing revision "J" with a cloud around it that was done in 1985.

First, I erase the cloud around the area pertaining to revision "J", leave the triangle designation touching the cloud showing the letter "J" for the revision. I then draw my natural gas line, connecting to the existing natural gas line, and route it towards the adjacent drawing (#1000) which contains the area of the new ladle dryer. Each plan drawing will have a border line on the edge with a note saying which drawing to go to to see the adjacent area. The gas supply line I am routing will go to the border line and end there.The note on the border says "For continuation, see drawing #1000", or something of that sort.

I then cloud around my new line, including all dimension and notes, draw a triangle touching the new cloud, and then put the letter "K" in the triangle as that is the next letter in line. I then go to the title block and write a description for revision "K", date it with the current date, and then initial it.

I then go to drawing #1000. It's last revision was "D" due to a client change in 1967. That's the last time it was touched. I again erase the cloud, leave the triangle showing revision "D", draw my new dryer, the gas line coming from drawing #900, etc. I then draw a new revision cloud around everything new on that drawing and label it revision "E", since that is the next letter on the drawing proper.

I create my detail drawing, and then issue all three of them to the client for approval/construction.

It's all the same "revision issue" (the new ladle dryer), but the new, revised material is labeled on each drawing with the next letter in sequence on that particular drawing, hence revision "K" on one drawing and revision "D" on the other.

I'm not saying this is the way it is for every project, but how I did things when I was designing things for an engineering firm.

This was the same for me regarding something brand new which didn't use any existing/old drawings. If the drawings were issued for construction and the client came back a week later and wanted to change something, we would sequentially label each drawing affected with the next revision letter on that drawing. We would never use one revision letter per project. It was one revision letter per drawing, in sequence, whenever something changed on that drawing.

Sorry for the long winded post.

Gamolon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2012, 07:36 AM   #402
Animal
Graduate Poster
 
Animal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 1,785
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
In my experience, it was both.
I can see how that method works for long term situations like that. Everything I do is involved with a shorter time frame.....i.e. building construction. Changes to drawings are issued as either addendums (changes to the drawings and specs before the bid is due / contract awarded) or bulletins (changes to the contract) Drawings and specs are changed and the addendum or bulletin is issued a number, regardless of how many sheets are changed, so I may end up with 100 bulletins each one only changed one different sheet out of a 500 page set. A summary is also issued which describes all the changes to each document so that there is a record at the end in case there are any challenges to costs etc. I do have to say that with cad, it is certainly easier to keep track of changes on drawings....I just assign the clouds a different layer and turn them off as new bulletins occur, but I have a built in record in the drawing file.
Animal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2012, 07:46 AM   #403
gerrycan
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 607
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
The third page of this discussion states the following:
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/f...I_sentence.png

This above statement is completely false. Following is the revision triangle "I" that I had found on drawing S-8. It resides to the immediate right of the beam connecting columns 54 and 61:
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/f.../revisionI.png

Along with the revision "I" shown above revision "H" in the title block. It is very light and cannot be seen, but there is definitely something there. The whole drawing is full of "faded" or "light" lines and text.
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/f...revision_I.png

gerrycan had made this claim to me of the missing revision "I" on S-8 numerous times, and when I showed him the above, he never responded.
Hi Gamelon,

Just to be clear, you are saying that the revision 'I' is actually there, above 'H' but it is just too faded to see?
Also, do you still believe that there are no floor specific 's8' drawings for 12/13, and that the typical drawing would be used for these?
Sorry if I have got the wrong end of the stick here, but it looks to me like this is what you are saying.
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2012, 11:48 AM   #404
Gamolon
Graduate Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,644
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Hi Gamelon,

Just to be clear, you are saying that the revision 'I' is actually there, above 'H' but it is just too faded to see?
That's exactly what I'm saying. Here is the revision triangle on drawing S-8. It can be found immediately to the right of the beam between columns 54 and 61:


Here is the revision "I" above revision "H" in the title block. There is definitely something above "H". I said it could be to faded to see and only looking at the original drawing would you be able to tell if something was actually there or not:


Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Also, do you still believe that there are no floor specific 's8' drawings for 12/13, and that the typical drawing would be used for these?
Sorry if I have got the wrong end of the stick here, but it looks to me like this is what you are saying.
In the "S" series of drawings (Emery Roth/Cantor), there are no floor specific drawings except those of S-10, S-19, and S-20. S-8 was typical for all aside from those 3 floors.

The "E" series of drawings (Frankel Steel) had specific floor drawings. In particular, E12/13 (floors 12 and 13).

Both the S-8 drawing from Emery and the E12/13 drawing from Frankel show no studs on the beam between column 44 and 79.

You see, the big mistake you are making in your video, "Shear Ignorance", is that you want the viewer to believe that because shear studs were called out on drawing S-10 and S-20 (drawings specific for floor 10 and floor 20) for the beam between column 79 and 44, those shear studs should be on every beam between column 79 and 44 for every floor.

That is incorrect.

Last edited by Gamolon; 18th November 2012 at 11:52 AM.
Gamolon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2012, 12:30 PM   #405
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 21,853
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Hi Gamelon,

Just to be clear, you are saying that the revision 'I' is actually there, above 'H' but it is just too faded to see?
Also, do you still believe that there are no floor specific 's8' drawings for 12/13, and that the typical drawing would be used for these?
Sorry if I have got the wrong end of the stick here, but it looks to me like this is what you are saying.
Is your CPU heat-sink still steel? lol

You still in the inside job fantasy world of nonsense? Fire did it, what did it in your world? Poor 911 truth, 11 years of solid failure. AE911 are gullible nuts, when will they wake up to reality? 11 years of ignorance and the best 911 truth has is recycled lies and fantasy. WTC 7? What the heck happens when you WTC 7 want to be engineers get to 77 and 93, with no knowledge or experience to understand WTC 7 collapse, how does this fantasy inside job work with 93 and 77? Fire caused the WTC 7 failure, what is your big picture claim when it comes to Girder 44-79?

Those who need to understand and prevent this failure in the future, have the money to study it; 911 truth makes up lies, real engineers are paid to design and make real change. I can't believe 911 truth can't grasp WTC 7 was not a standard building, was unique. I can't believe their conspiracy nonsense targets a building not attacked on 911. They can't find evidence in the towers, so they make up lies about 7.

Last edited by beachnut; 18th November 2012 at 12:32 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2012, 03:16 PM   #406
gerrycan
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 607
Thanks, glad we have got that established. I will ignore for now the fact that you are totally guessing about what may or may not have been above the 'H' reference in the drawing, but the below statement is troubling. I will retype it, in the way I think would be less troubling. The additions are in red and the green bit is where you compound your error by guessing, again.

Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
In the "S" series of drawings (Emery Roth/Cantor), there are no floor specific drawings that I am aware of,except those of S-10, S-19, and S-20. S-8 was typical for all aside from those 3 floors.
That's better, you agree?

Last edited by gerrycan; 18th November 2012 at 03:17 PM.
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2012, 03:26 PM   #407
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 18,502
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Thanks, glad we have got that established. I will ignore for now the fact that you are totally guessing about what may or may not have been above the 'H' reference in the drawing, but the below statement is troubling. I will retype it, in the way I think would be less troubling. The additions are in red and the green bit is where you compound your error by guessing, again.



That's better, you agree?
You forgot to quote this part:

Quote:
Both the S-8 drawing from Emery and the E12/13 drawing from Frankel show no studs on the beam between column 44 and 79.
You're welcome.
__________________
Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join Team 13232!

"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2012, 03:48 PM   #408
gerrycan
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 607
To think that there would not be an 's' drawing for each floor is more than a little naive.
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2012, 03:53 PM   #409
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 18,502
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
To think that there would not be an 's' drawing for each floor is more than a little naive.
Why? If there was no revisions why not use a typical?
__________________
Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join Team 13232!

"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2012, 04:06 PM   #410
gerrycan
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 607
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Why? If there was no revisions why not use a typical?
So you don't think that there are any differences in these floors? Have you looked at the drawings much???
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2012, 04:08 PM   #411
gerrycan
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 607
Both the S-8 drawing from Emery and the E12/13 drawing from Frankel show no studs on the beam between column 44 and 79
Oh and btw, it's a girder.
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2012, 04:32 PM   #412
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 18,502
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
So you don't think that there are any differences in these floors? Have you looked at the drawings much???
Yes, I have. I also don't believe these are the complete drawings as built. I seriously doubt these actually still exists (as builts that is).
__________________
Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join Team 13232!

"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2012, 04:46 PM   #413
gerrycan
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 607
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Yes, I have. I also don't believe these are the complete drawings as built. I seriously doubt these actually still exists (as builts that is).
Of course these are not a complete set of drawings. The fact that there is no floor specific 's' drawing for all those floors is enough to establish that.
So are you agreeing that Gamelon is guessing when he says that.....
S-8 was typical for all aside from those 3 floors.
?
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2012, 04:53 PM   #414
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 18,502
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Of course these are not a complete set of drawings. The fact that there is no floor specific 's' drawing for all those floors is enough to establish that.
So are you agreeing that Gamelon is guessing when he says that.....
S-8 was typical for all aside from those 3 floors.
?
What"s the point? Even if there was shear studs it still would not have prevented the collapse. I'm failing to see the whole point in this.

Maybe you could enlighten me with a theory as to how it actually did happen?
__________________
Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join Team 13232!

"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2012, 05:10 PM   #415
gerrycan
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 607
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
What"s the point? Even if there was shear studs it still would not have prevented the collapse. I'm failing to see the whole point in this.

Maybe you could enlighten me with a theory as to how it actually did happen?
The point is that NIST have got the very connection that they blame, hopelessly wrong, and their erratum statement of a few months ago is still short of what is on the drawings (stiffner plates etc).
As to what did actually happen, I think we should first establish what didn't happen then reinvestigate until we find a hypothesis that fits with both the drawings that we now have, and with the collapse as observed. The current story fits with neither.
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2012, 05:35 PM   #416
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 18,502
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
The point is that NIST have got the very connection that they blame, hopelessly wrong, and their erratum statement of a few months ago is still short of what is on the drawings (stiffner plates etc).
As to what did actually happen, I think we should first establish what didn't happen then reinvestigate until we find a hypothesis that fits with both the drawings that we now have, and with the collapse as observed. The current story fits with neither.
So, you have no clue except to say they got it wrong (and you don't have very good proof of that)?

Tell you what. Wake us when you get the clue. I hate to sound crass but, that's the way it is. You have noticed that no one really is paying attention to you? Why do you think this is? Could it be you don't know what you're talking about?

Gerry, It's time you wake up to the fact you have to actually present something of substance. Give us a better theory. Until you do this you will stay where you have stayed for the last ? years. OK?

You do this, I promise I'll listen.(I have so far)
__________________
Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join Team 13232!

"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

Last edited by DGM; 18th November 2012 at 05:39 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2012, 05:41 PM   #417
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 21,853
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
The point is that NIST have got the very connection that they blame, hopelessly wrong, and their erratum statement of a few months ago is still short of what is on the drawings (stiffner plates etc).
As to what did actually happen, I think we should first establish what didn't happen then reinvestigate until we find a hypothesis that fits with both the drawings that we now have, and with the collapse as observed. The current story fits with neither.
What is stopping you or AE911T from investigating? Gage has no goal to investigate, he is hoping there are gullible people who will donate to the endless call for a new investigation, while ignoring the hundreds done, and reality.
What happened?, fire destroyed the WTC complex, it was clear on 911, and if you investigate further, fire did it. Good luck.

You and the entire world are free to study WTC 7; there was no inside job on 911, so have at it.

There are many studies done about the WTC complex. My tax dollars are done studying what was done by 19 terrorists. You and the failed AE911T can do what you want with your money, and send Gage around the world again, begging for dollars to plant the idea we need a new investigation for what fire did. A PhD in nonsense.

Originally Posted by BasqueArch View Post
I received TS' 5 FEA color slides re the walk-off of the WTC7 girder from its seat. He claims the girder did not buckle. His slides show the girder buckled.

Not shown due to his incomplete FEA, is that the girder bottom flange was pushed off >6.5 inches, past its supporting seat, by the beams.
The girder failed due to fire not CD.
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
The point is ...
Did Tony prove it was fire and not CD? The point is, it was fire, not CD.

I don't understand wasting time on WTC 7, when the targets on 911 were WTC 1 and 2. How do the crazy conspiracy theorists fail to show it was CD on WTC 1 and 2, so they have to make fantasy CD on WTC 7. What paper did AE911T sponsor with their million dollars and over a thousand members who claim it was CD, thermite and other woo? It becomes silly to discuss the topic of the OP when the conclusion of AE911T is CD, and thermite. You can dismiss all the claims of 911 truth due to insufficient evidence, and pure nonsense. Where is your paper? Where is Gage's sponsored work? It is funny Gage is making money, and the over thousand members of his group are clueless he is the personification of fraud, and has no original ideas on 911.

Did Tony slides show the girder buckled?
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2012, 05:59 PM   #418
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,301
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
The point is that NIST have got the very connection that they blame, hopelessly wrong, ...
Perhaps I am missing something here, but are you saying both that
1. We don't have the relevant detailed drawing of the floor in question
AND
2. You know that what NIST assumed is not what would be on that drawing (which we don't have)?

How would you know that?
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2012, 06:01 PM   #419
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,301
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
What"s the point? Even if there was shear studs it still would not have prevented the collapse. I'm failing to see the whole point in this. ...
I think that's "moving goal posts"
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2012, 06:07 PM   #420
gerrycan
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 607
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
So, you have no clue except to say they got it wrong (and you don't have very good proof of that)?

Tell you what. Wake us when you get the clue. I hate to sound crass but, that's the way it is. You have noticed that no one really is paying attention to you? Why do you think this is? Could it be you don't know what you're talking about?

Gerry, It's time you wake up to the fact you have to actually present something of substance. Give us a better theory. Until you do this you will stay where you have stayed for the last ? years. OK?

You do this, I promise I'll listen.(I have so far)
Seems to me that NIST already admitted that they made some errors around this column connection. I am sure you have seen that for yourself here -
http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=901225

They still do not aknowledge that they missed out whole elements, the stiffner plates for example.
Finally, when you are talking about 's-8', are you referring to the 33rd floor framing plan? Just checking to see if we are on the same page here.
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2012, 06:13 PM   #421
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 18,502
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Seems to me that NIST already admitted that they made some errors around this column connection. I am sure you have seen that for yourself here -
http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=901225

They still do not aknowledge that they missed out whole elements, the stiffner plates for example.
Finally, when you are talking about 's-8', are you referring to the 33rd floor framing plan? Just checking to see if we are on the same page here.
Big deal. What is your competing theory? Why are you so reluctant to present this? You have one, right? I said (and I will) listen.

Somehow I think you are fooling yourself into thinking if you make doubt, somehow this will make what you want true. Did I get this right?
__________________
Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join Team 13232!

"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2012, 06:16 PM   #422
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 18,502
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I think that's "moving goal posts"
I'm starting to think* we're not even on the same playing field.


*actually I've know this for years
__________________
Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join Team 13232!

"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

Last edited by DGM; 18th November 2012 at 06:18 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2012, 06:27 PM   #423
gerrycan
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 607
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Perhaps I am missing something here, but are you saying both that
1. We don't have the relevant detailed drawing of the floor in question
AND
2. You know that what NIST assumed is not what would be on that drawing (which we don't have)?

How would you know that?
1. You clearly don't.

2. NIST couldn't even get the elements that ARE clearly shown in the drawings right. I am prepared to believe that NIST took s-8 to be a generic drawing, covering many floors. It wouldnt surprise me.

There are a lot more drawings for WTC7 than you or i have seen. NIST should release the complete set.
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2012, 06:38 PM   #424
gerrycan
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 607
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Big deal. What is your competing theory? Why are you so reluctant to present this? You have one, right? I said (and I will) listen.

Somehow I think you are fooling yourself into thinking if you make doubt, somehow this will make what you want true. Did I get this right?
My theory is that NIST got it wrong. So far they have taken a few tentative steps toward admitting this, but they need to move nearer to an explanation that sits with the plans we know they had when they came up with their story. In short, if NISTs story was any good, there would be no room to create doubt.
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2012, 06:39 PM   #425
gerrycan
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 607
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I'm starting to think* we're not even on the same playing field.


*actually I've know this for years
You got that much right.
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2012, 06:46 PM   #426
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 21,853
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
My theory is that NIST got it wrong. ... In short, if NISTs story was any good, there would be no room to create doubt.
Fire did it, what else could? Add some gravity, and it is all over.
The OP is about Tony, his work says fire did it, and that agrees with NIST. Tony says his work does not show that, but did it?


Originally Posted by BasqueArch View Post
I received TS' 5 FEA color slides re the walk-off of the WTC7 girder from its seat. He claims the girder did not buckle. His slides show the girder buckled.

Not shown due to his incomplete FEA, is that the girder bottom flange was pushed off >6.5 inches, past its supporting seat, by the beams.
The girder failed due to fire not CD.


Did Tony mess up? Fire did it, NIST said fire did it; what did it in your theory? Your theory is wrong, fire did it. So much for theories based on nothing.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2012, 07:09 PM   #427
gerrycan
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 607
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Fire did it, what else could? Add some gravity, and it is all over.
The OP is about Tony, his work says fire did it, and that agrees with NIST. Tony says his work does not show that, but did it?





Did Tony mess up? Fire did it, NIST said fire did it; what did it in your theory? Your theory is wrong, fire did it. So much for theories based on nothing.
I don't speak for Tony, I came on here to ask Gamelon about his analysis. I will wait for that answer. Sorry if i invaded your thread.
Fire is not a proven mechanism for bringing down high rise steel buildings. so your 'what else could' question is premature, the fact remains that this unprecedented supposed cause requires more investigation.
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2012, 07:47 PM   #428
MileHighMadness
Critical Thinker
 
MileHighMadness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 353
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Fire is not a proven mechanism for bringing down high rise steel buildings. so your 'what else could' question is premature, the fact remains that this unprecedented supposed cause requires more investigation.
Wrong...

This is very simple and straight forward…if you cook a steel frame building long enough, it’s going to collapse. Architects and Structural Engineers who design and construct multi-story steel building for a living understand this. That’s why they place fireproofing on structural steel beams and columns, and install a sprinkler system throughout the building.

Again, for the record, the theory that WTC buildings where bought down by controlled demolition is probably one the dumbest ideas in the history of mankind. The chance that any of the controlled demolition theories are true is Absolute Zero...IMHO
MileHighMadness is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2012, 08:03 PM   #429
gerrycan
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 607
Originally Posted by MileHighMadness View Post
Wrong...

This is very simple and straight forward…if you cook a steel frame building long enough, it’s going to collapse. Architects and Structural Engineers who design and construct multi-story steel building for a living understand this. That’s why they place fireproofing on structural steel beams and columns, and install a sprinkler system throughout the building.

Again, for the record, the theory that WTC buildings where bought down by controlled demolition is probably one the dumbest ideas in the history of mankind. The chance that any of the controlled demolition theories are true is Absolute Zero...IMHO
AGAIN, for the record, I am saying that NIST have made some serious mistakes in their analysis. Why would you object to someone exposing this?
Where did I say CD brought down the building?
I understand that you dont wish to discuss the serious omitions and mistakes in NISTs analysis, but try to be a little more creative in your avoidance tactics, and dont put words in my mouth, please.
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2012, 08:10 PM   #430
MileHighMadness
Critical Thinker
 
MileHighMadness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 353
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
AGAIN, for the record, I am saying that NIST have made some serious mistakes in their analysis. Why would you object to someone exposing this?
Where did I say CD brought down the building?
I understand that you dont wish to discuss the serious omitions and mistakes in NISTs analysis, but try to be a little more creative in your avoidance tactics, and dont put words in my mouth, please.
The NIST report is not perfect, but it's the gold standard for structural analysis and investigation. Building 7 was bought down by the damage and fires. A critical beam/column connection failed, and an interior column became unstable and failed. End of Story...
MileHighMadness is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2012, 08:15 PM   #431
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 21,853
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
I don't speak for Tony, I came on here to ask Gamelon about his analysis. I will wait for that answer. Sorry if i invaded your thread.
Fire is not a proven mechanism for bringing down high rise steel buildings. so your 'what else could' question is premature, the fact remains that this unprecedented supposed cause requires more investigation.
Baloney. What else is premature? That is code for woo.

You have over 1600 Gage cult members, have them do the new investigation. lol

That's rich, 3 buildings on 911 destroyed by fire, and gravity. Ironically gravity is the key for CD too, the reason CD looks like a gravity collapse; Gravity. Physics and fire science, things never used by 911 truth. Instead 911 truth has failed claims based on ignorance.

Fire has destroyed high rise buildings besides many on 911 - One Meridian Plaza, fire fought building totaled. Windsor building in Spain, destroyed by fire, totaled. Looks like fire is a proved mechanism for destroying high-rise buildings. Fire destroyed WTC 5 and 6 too, and more. I don't have to be an engineer (which I am since my graduation in 74, and 81 for my masters) to understand fire did it. If you are an engineer you know fire did it, but like I said, any rational person knows fire destroyed the WTC complex, the proof is solid, because it happened. Did you fall for Jones' made up thermite claims - I have his first letter where he waves his hands, and claims thermite, 4 years after 911.

Originally Posted by BasqueArch View Post
I received TS' 5 FEA color slides re the walk-off of the WTC7 girder from its seat. He claims the girder did not buckle. His slides show the girder buckled.

Not shown due to his incomplete FEA, is that the girder bottom flange was pushed off >6.5 inches, past its supporting seat, by the beams.
The girder failed due to fire not CD.
Did Tony's point to fire? There was only only evidence of fire, to deny that is nonsense. 11 years, tick, tock, when will 60 Minutes run with 911 failed claims? never


Why do they put in sprinkler systems? Why do they have to insulate steel so people can escape in-case of collapse? lol, fire never? Steel is not used because it is strong in fire, it is used because it is cheap, efficient, and one of the top elements on earth, along with Al. Fe, and Al. Steel fails quickly in fire, this is why is has to be protected, and why fires have to be fought quickly.

My theory why 911 followers are so easy to dismiss NIST; the fires on 911 were in bright full sun daylight. Had 911 happened at night, there would be no doubt the largest office fires in history took down 1, 2, 7, 5, 6 and more. Add perception to the things 911 truth has no grasp of.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2012, 09:17 PM   #432
Animal
Graduate Poster
 
Animal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 1,785
It is simply amazing to see troofers ignore common knowledge that has been around for at least 150 years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drsgs6-3Qlg
Animal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2012, 09:55 PM   #433
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 21,853
Originally Posted by Animal View Post
It is simply amazing to see troofers ignore common knowledge that has been around for at least 150 years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drsgs6-3Qlg
I was going to post a photo of steel bent in fire, in an office building, but they have destroyed photobucket... they... Who are they?

The real conspiracy, they changed photobucket. Who is in charge of that department, who messed up photobucket? Who is the idiot who changed photobucket? Confess early.

mmm, something didn't click... do you want to try again?

WHAT?

Finally, after as long as the edits took... Photobucket photo was found, url copied, and posted... When will photobucket end?

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/l...eridiansag.jpg


12 minutes to post from photobucket... what use to be seconds. Wow, someone improved photobucket. Good job.

One Meridian Plaza, destroyed by fire; fires were fought. WTC 7, fires not fought; WTC 7 destroyed by fire.

Last edited by beachnut; 18th November 2012 at 10:09 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2012, 03:50 AM   #434
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,301
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
...
2. NIST couldn't even get the elements that ARE clearly shown in the drawings right. I am prepared to believe that NIST took s-8 to be a generic drawing, covering many floors. It wouldnt surprise me.

There are a lot more drawings for WTC7 than you or i have seen. NIST should release the complete set.
You didn't answer my second question, and instead answered one I didn't ask. So again:


2. [Are you saying that] You know that what NIST assumed is not what would be on that drawing (which we don't have)?

How would you know that?
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2012, 03:52 AM   #435
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,301
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
My theory is that NIST got it wrong. ...
Now we need to figure out what's right instead, and how problematic that is which NIST got wrong.

Do you know what's right instead? Do you know how much of a difference it makes (wrt the overall objective, which is "did fires alone start that collapse, or was 7 CDed?")?
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2012, 03:54 AM   #436
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,301
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
...
Fire is not a proven mechanism for bringing down high rise steel buildings. ...
Would you agree that fire is a proven mechanism to bring down non-highrise steel buildings?
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2012, 08:25 AM   #437
Gamolon
Graduate Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,644
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
To think that there would not be an 's' drawing for each floor is more than a little naive.
No, it's more to the fact that you don't understand construction drawings and how they function.

There are no other "S" drawing for individual floors aside from those for floor 10, 19, and 20. Drawing S-8 says in the title block that the drawing is the TYPICAL floor farming plan for floors 8 to 20 and for floors 24 to 45.

What don't you get?
Gamolon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2012, 08:32 AM   #438
Gamolon
Graduate Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,644
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
That's better, you agree?
No, I don't agree. Every floor is accounted for in the "S" series of drawings.

You are wrong.
Gamolon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2012, 08:35 AM   #439
Gamolon
Graduate Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,644
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
2. NIST couldn't even get the elements that ARE clearly shown in the drawings right. I am prepared to believe that NIST took s-8 to be a generic drawing, covering many floors. It wouldnt surprise me.
Bottom line. Both the Frankel drawings AND the Cantor drawings show no studs on the beams in question.

And as for your trying to correct me on the use of the word "girder" or "beam", a girder is STILL a type of beam.
Gamolon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2012, 09:03 AM   #440
Miragememories
Illuminator
 
Miragememories's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 4,394
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Would you agree that fire is a proven mechanism to bring down non-highrise steel buildings?
Would you agree that a 47-story modern steel tower covering a city block is extremely unlikely to have a final collapse, totally and at high speed, simply because of the prevailing heat created by migrating office cubicle fires?

Particularly, with a visual outline previously identifiable only with steel towers felled by controlled demolition?

Do you honestly believe that in light of the NIST's final 9/11 Report on WTC7, that a demolition company could, using the NIST WTC7 Report specifications, have induced a similar full, high speed building collapse?

And they could make those office cubicle fires dance so well that the core failure would be so well timed and balanced as to prevent significant toppling?

MM
__________________
"No one said the air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe."
-Mark Roberts, 11/5/2007
[The bad air was amazingly confined to the Ground Zero site? "Who knew"]
"I am glad to reassure the people of New York and Washington, D.C. that their air is safe to breathe and their water is safe to drink."
-Christie Todd Whitman, EPA Press Release, 9/18/2001

Last edited by Miragememories; 19th November 2012 at 09:06 AM.
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:32 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.