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

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


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 ae911truth , J. Leroy Hulsey , wtc 7

Reply
Old 23rd November 2015, 06:57 AM   #41
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,815
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
The failure that occurred to directly and subsequently cause rooftop structures to fall inward would appear to be a failure of col 79.
.
Originally Posted by Redwood View Post
Agreed, as being strictly true; but if you change the statement to "the first outward manifestation of the structural failure of WTC 7, the collapse of the East Penthouse, was almost certainly the result of the failure of column 79", then it's well-nigh undeniable, even by Truthers.
Yours is a much better way to say what I said.

As far as undeniable by truthers though, Tony Sz does in fact deny it. He puts forth the completely unsubstantiated fantasy of explosives taking out the columns just a few floors below the roof to make it look like the column failed lower down.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 23rd November 2015 at 07:00 AM.
jaydeehess 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 23rd November 2015, 07:40 AM   #42
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,688
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Yours is a much better way to say what I said.

As far as undeniable by truthers though, Tony Sz does in fact deny it. He puts forth the completely unsubstantiated fantasy of explosives taking out the columns just a few floors below the roof to make it look like the column failed lower down.
There is a bit of irony when there is talk of "column 79" failing because structures above it collapsed down.

Column 79 was supported on caissons and had several major beams/girders framed into it all the way down to floor 1. NIST posited a floor 13 failure, but the failure producing the same visuals could have just as easily have occurred lower down.

So one can't deny that there was a column 79 failure because of the visuals... but one can't determine from the visuals how low down that failure actually occurred. The multi story vertical kink in the north facade tells us that it was likely much lower that the very top floors as Tony would have us believe.

I am unaware of photos which show how far down the kink extended. That might be a clue.
JSanderO 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 23rd November 2015, 07:54 AM   #43
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,815
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
There is a bit of irony when there is talk of "column 79" failing because structures above it collapsed down.

Column 79 was supported on caissons and had several major beams/girders framed into it all the way down to floor 1. NIST posited a floor 13 failure, but the failure producing the same visuals could have just as easily have occurred lower down.

So one can't deny that there was a column 79 failure because of the visuals... but one can't determine from the visuals how low down that failure actually occurred. The multi story vertical kink in the north facade tells us that it was likely much lower that the very top floors as Tony would have us believe.

I am unaware of photos which show how far down the kink extended. That might be a clue.
Tony , and a lot of truthers, completely ignore the north face 'kink' since it illustrates a problem with their 'all columns destroyed at once", and "it all fell at once" fantasies.

NIST simply found one area that was most affected by the fires in the building which also was proximate to col 79 which in turn obviously failed and was the cause of the first outward manifestation of the structural failure of WTC 7, the collapse of the East Penthouse.
So, yes, col 79 could have failed much lower down but the only known driver of such failure is the fire on 12. There might have been fire lower down, there might have been impact damage lower down (elevator car was ejected from shaft at fifth floor), but evidence for these is scant. NIST goes with "most probable".
jaydeehess 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 23rd November 2015, 08:08 AM   #44
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,688
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Tony , and a lot of truthers, completely ignore the north face 'kink' since it illustrates a problem with their 'all columns destroyed at once", and "it all fell at once" fantasies.

NIST simply found one area that was most affected by the fires in the building which also was proximate to col 79 which in turn obviously failed and was the cause of the first outward manifestation of the structural failure of WTC 7, the collapse of the East Penthouse.
So, yes, col 79 could have failed much lower down but the only known driver of such failure is the fire on 12. There might have been fire lower down, there might have been impact damage lower down (elevator car was ejected from shaft at fifth floor), but evidence for these is scant. NIST goes with "most probable".
I am aware of the NIST arguments... AND I have read many times... where is the evidence that something lower down "failed"? Of course the survey information and data collection from lower that the cameras could see... is obviously not going to be there.

I do recall seeing some photos and vids of extensive fire on the NW corner around floor 8 or so... I don't recall the precise floor of the time of these fires. But they are some manner of evidence that extensive fires occurred on the NE corner below 12 at some point.

The irony to me is that the NIST presentation and the crowd here likes to imagine a pristine structure below col 79 on floor 13 because that is where NIST chose to model a failure from I suppose heat images of the facade at that level. Really this seems a bit odd. Doesn't it?
JSanderO 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 23rd November 2015, 08:33 AM   #45
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,383
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
There is a bit of irony when there is talk of "column 79" failing because structures above it collapsed down.

Column 79 was supported on caissons and had several major beams/girders framed into it all the way down to floor 1. NIST posited a floor 13 failure, but the failure producing the same visuals could have just as easily have occurred lower down.

So one can't deny that there was a column 79 failure because of the visuals... but one can't determine from the visuals how low down that failure actually occurred. The multi story vertical kink in the north facade tells us that it was likely much lower that the very top floors as Tony would have us believe.

I am unaware of photos which show how far down the kink extended. That might be a clue.
All correct - also what jdh said: We, or NIST, can't be certain that it was the situation at the floor-13-girder-to-44 that initiated the failure of 79. It is true that there were also significant fires on several floors below the 12th.

Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
I am aware of the NIST arguments... AND I have read many times... where is the evidence that something lower down "failed"?
Was already mentioned: The EPH descent plus the kink indicate c79 failure "lower down", window breakages near col 44 much of the way down corroborate.
We just can't be sure how far "down" c79 failed.

Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
I do recall seeing some photos and vids of extensive fire on the NW corner around floor 8 or so... I don't recall the precise floor of the time of these fires. But they are some manner of evidence that extensive fires occurred on the NE corner below 12 at some point.

The irony to me is that the NIST presentation and the crowd here likes to imagine a pristine structure below col 79 on floor 13 because that is where NIST chose to model a failure from I suppose heat images of the facade at that level. Really this seems a bit odd. Doesn't it?
I don't sense that anyone here pretends thusly.
Most are aware that there were large fires on floors 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13.
NIST claims that various connections had already failed on several floors in that general area in the east. The f13-c79-c44 girder was merely the straw in NIST's model that broke the camel's back. When f13 fell, it failed f12, f11, f10 etc in dynamic overloading. Not sure if NIST comments if the already accumulated damage to those floors was significant for the cascading floor failure.

Even an explosive charge place on c79 anywhere between ground floor and 15th floor (or whatever) could have done the trick, and that's why NIST considered that possibility - and rejected it on account of the missing blast sound.


I wonder if perhaps even a failure of c80, ahead of c79, could have started such a cascade.


But what's the point? The NIST scenario seems plausible, and if it can be shown wrong, then other plausible non-CD scenarios would be in the queue.

There were horrendous fires - that's a fact
Steel is vulnerable to fires - that's a fact
The steel structure collapsed - that's a fact.

Were there CD charges? No evidence exists - they are NOT fact.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is online now   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 23rd November 2015, 09:21 AM   #46
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,688
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post

But what's the point? The NIST scenario seems plausible, and if it can be shown wrong, then other plausible non-CD scenarios would be in the queue.

There were horrendous fires - that's a fact
Steel is vulnerable to fires - that's a fact
The steel structure collapsed - that's a fact.

Were there CD charges? No evidence exists - they are NOT fact.
The only "point" is to not leave the impression that the NIST explanation is THE correct and only possible one. Sadly I think this is precisely what is happening or has happened. The truthers, such as Tony and others have focused on disproving NIST. This forum refuses to even look at anything else and defends NIST's theory almost as FACT despite the fact that their own GIF widely diverges from what we all saw.

I've read many times that col 79 buckled from the floor 13 failure. I am not an engineer and I understand the purpose of lateral bracing but a single girder walk off leading to a 1000#/ft buckling is counter intuitive and actually not even explain as far as I know. And why would the GIF not look anything like what happened?

So sure... column 79 had to collapse... but so far the NIST stuff is non convincing to me. And I think... they need to convince dumb people how this happened... even dumber than me.
JSanderO 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 23rd November 2015, 10:04 AM   #47
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,383
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
I've read many times that col 79 buckled from the floor 13 failure. I am not an engineer and I understand the purpose of lateral bracing but a single girder walk off leading to a 1000#/ft buckling is counter intuitive and actually not even explain as far as I know.
Sander, I am quite surprised you misrepresent the NIST scenario like this!

Are you not conveniently forgetting that, before c79 buckled in that scenario, not only had the girder on f13 walked of, but its counterparts on floors 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7 and 6 also had failed - as a result of f13 crashing down?
That left c79 unbraced to one side over not 2 but 8 floors. Makes a vast difference, doesn't it?

Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
And why would the GIF not look anything like what happened?
Do you mean the appearance of the perimter collapse ten seconds later?
Easily explained: NIST, as you remember, did two simulations: One without, and one with south perimeter structural damage from the WTC1 debris impacts. This had a large effect on the appearance of the collapse late into the sequence (after the north wall started to descend).
Now the damage estimate for the south face without a doubt was not accurate, did not match the true damage extent. Isn't easy to see that further corrections of the model, towards the (unknown) true damage pattern, might very well have further modified the appearance of the last collapse phase - possibly towards matching the true collapse?
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is online now   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 23rd November 2015, 10:11 AM   #48
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,688
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Sander, I am quite surprised you misrepresent the NIST scenario like this!

Are you not conveniently forgetting that, before c79 buckled in that scenario, not only had the girder on f13 walked of, but its counterparts on floors 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7 and 6 also had failed - as a result of f13 crashing down?
That left c79 unbraced to one side over not 2 but 8 floors. Makes a vast difference, doesn't it?


Do you mean the appearance of the perimter collapse ten seconds later?
Easily explained: NIST, as you remember, did two simulations: One without, and one with south perimeter structural damage from the WTC1 debris impacts. This had a large effect on the appearance of the collapse late into the sequence (after the north wall started to descend).
Now the damage estimate for the south face without a doubt was not accurate, did not match the true damage extent. Isn't easy to see that further corrections of the model, towards the (unknown) true damage pattern, might very well have further modified the appearance of the last collapse phase - possibly towards matching the true collapse?
I am unaware of all the details of this NIST scenario of the floor sections all being destroyed on one side of col 79 down to floor 6. What was the evidence presented for these floors collapsing? I am not asserting it is not possible. I am simply asking for the support for this. Why would it stop at floor 6?
JSanderO 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 23rd November 2015, 10:30 AM   #49
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,813
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
...
The irony to me is that ... the crowd here likes to imagine a pristine structure below col 79 on floor 13 ...
More like you like to imagine.
Source this, or explain how you can read minds,and failed to take home the million dollars.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

Last edited by beachnut; 23rd November 2015 at 10:33 AM.
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 23rd November 2015, 11:12 AM   #50
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,815
It is possible that the lower fire at the NE corner had an effect. Even if that effect was some local deformation. Such deformation could also contribute to forces on girder 44/col79.

I don't see that there is evidence that the lower fire could have affected col79 directly. Yes it might have if it burned further west. Problem is that there is no evidence it did and NIST operates on what there is good evidence for such as fire on 12 proximate to col79.

Truthers ignore working with direct and good evidence in favour of speculations and fantasy.
jaydeehess 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 23rd November 2015, 04:01 PM   #51
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,383
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
I am unaware of all the details of this NIST scenario of the floor sections all being destroyed on one side of col 79 down to floor 6. What was the evidence presented for these floors collapsing? I am not asserting it is not possible. I am simply asking for the support for this. Why would it stop at floor 6?
Floors 5-7 had a structure very different from those above - no tenant space, only structural and some utility infrastructure. Floor 5 had this "diaphragm" moment frame floor.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is online now   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 23rd November 2015, 04:09 PM   #52
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,815
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Floors 5-7 had a structure very different from those above - no tenant space, only structural and some utility infrastructure. Floor 5 had this "diaphragm" moment frame floor.
That's what I thought but didn't have time to check on, thx.

IMO the lowest floors did not fail until heavy debris from the mechanical penthouse fell pretty much unopposed from 40+ storeys higher up.
jaydeehess 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 23rd November 2015, 04:17 PM   #53
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,377
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
I've read many times that col 79 buckled from the floor 13 failure. I am not an engineer and I understand the purpose of lateral bracing but a single girder walk off leading to a 1000#/ft buckling is counter intuitive and actually not even explain as far as I know.
Sander, I am quite surprised you misrepresent the NIST scenario like this!

Are you not conveniently forgetting that, before c79 buckled in that scenario, not only had the girder on f13 walked of, but its counterparts on floors 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7 and 6 also had failed - as a result of f13 crashing down?
I have been saddened to see the issues Sander has been pushing for the last couple of years on WTC7 collapse initiation. Specifically these three - not in order:
A) He misrepresents the NIST explanation of C79 failure as it being caused SOLELY by girder walk off. (The point you identified in your second paragraph quoted above Oystein.)
B) He has proposed an alternate hypothesis - transfer truss failure - which is a plausible alternate. Nothing more than plausible until it is supported by valid reasoning.
C) Sander represents his own mechanism as superior to NIST's - whilst relying on his "straw man" misrepresentation of NIST as support and giving no persuasive argument to support his own claim in preference to that from NIST.

His alternate may be better in his own judgement and he may be right that NIST is in error BUT there is no argument to support either of those two conclusion which Sander has been pressing forcefully for many months.

The rest of us do not have to accept "reversed burden of disproof" to show whether you are right or wrong Sander. It is your claim.

Last edited by ozeco41; 23rd November 2015 at 04:41 PM.
ozeco41 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 23rd November 2015, 05:03 PM   #54
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,688
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
I have been saddened to see the issues Sander has been pushing for the last couple of years on WTC7 collapse initiation. Specifically these three - not in order:
A) He misrepresents the NIST explanation of C79 failure as it being caused SOLELY by girder walk off. (The point you identified in your second paragraph quoted above Oystein.)
B) He has proposed an alternate hypothesis - transfer truss failure - which is a plausible alternate. Nothing more than plausible until it is supported by valid reasoning.
C) Sander represents his own mechanism as superior to NIST's - whilst relying on his "straw man" misrepresentation of NIST as support and giving no persuasive argument to support his own claim in preference to that from NIST.

His alternate may be better in his own judgement and he may be right that NIST is in error BUT there is no argument to support either of those two conclusion which Sander has been pressing forcefully for many months.

The rest of us do not have to accept "reversed burden of disproof" to show whether you are right or wrong Sander. It is your claim.
Apparently Nordenson along with some other engineers cited up thread...did a forensic engineering analysis and came to a different conclusion than NIST.

I am not here to prove anything. I haven't a clue as to how to prove it. I've given my reasons (dumb as they may be) why I was not sold on what I understood to be the NIST initiation location etc for the collapse. I think their GIF seems to undercut their theory because it doesn't resemble the real world visuals at ALL. Do others think it does?

As the entire inside DID collapse because the screen wall area and the WPH did come down BEFORE the moment frame AND the entire moment frame rotated counter clockwise and kinked... the interior destruction had to have propagated east to west... and probably at the lowest levels of the structure where the transfers were across the north side of the core.

The NIST theory as I understand the sequence was...

Col 79 has a girder walk off
a floor section collapses and that destroys the corresponding floor slabs below.
this leaves 79 unbraced and it buckles
this then collapses on TT1 and TT2
which then cause the transfers over the north end of the core to fail
which then causes TT3 to collapse and the WPH then falls
this leaves the insides gutted and the perimeter moment frame with no support below 8 collapses down

Yes or no?

Ozzie... remember.. I am not here to prove a theory but to understand the collapse in a manner that makes sense and is consistent with how the towers were built and the "forces" present which undid them.

I like or prefer to visualize the sequence even if it's not the precise one... how the buildings un did themselves. I don't know what this can't be done... not a proof...

Last edited by JSanderO; 23rd November 2015 at 05:16 PM.
JSanderO 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 23rd November 2015, 06:29 PM   #55
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,965
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Sander, I am quite surprised you misrepresent the NIST scenario like this!

Are you not conveniently forgetting that, before c79 buckled in that scenario, not only had the girder on f13 walked of, but its counterparts on floors 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7 and 6 also had failed - as a result of f13 crashing down?
That left c79 unbraced to one side over not 2 but 8 floors. Makes a vast difference, doesn't it?

A column only needs support in two orthogonal directions. Although the walk-off issue is impossible with stiffeners on girder A2001, I'll give it to you here for the sake of argument. What you apparently don't realize is that even if column 79 had been left laterally unsupported from the north over 8 stories it was still supported from the south and west. An everyday testament to this is exterior corner columns.

You may not be aware but NIST had to do some additional juggling to get the west side girders to fail. They say the west side girders failed due to thermal expansion breaking their bolts to their knife connections on the column. However, they have a problem on the girder under the 11th floor as there was no fire on the 10th floor. Column 79 could go at least 5 stories without lateral support. The fires were on the 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13. That means that even if the girder connections had failed the way the NIST report says they did, column 79 was never unsupported laterally by less than two orthogonal directions for more than three stories.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 23rd November 2015 at 06:33 PM.
Tony Szamboti 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 23rd November 2015, 10:12 PM   #56
Notconvinced
Critical Thinker
 
Notconvinced's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 337
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Peer review is a necessary condition for a piece of scientific work to be taken seriously.....
Ahem.... Millette's "work"....
Notconvinced 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 23rd November 2015, 10:20 PM   #57
Notconvinced
Critical Thinker
 
Notconvinced's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 337
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Who determines the "scenarios" and assumption/inputs to investigate?
Unlike the 20million or so tax payer funded fraud that NIST conducted, the world's researchers will be able to rigorously examine the inputs.

Notconvinced 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 23rd November 2015, 11:01 PM   #58
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
I see you guys on here are loving the fact that someone is producing an analysis of WTC7 for you....I mean....it's just what you always wanted isn't it. And you even get the chance to give your input to the project.
I have some suggestions.
Perhaps it would be best to take the dimensions from column 80 or 81 or any other column when modelling the connection type and dimensions at column 79. I would particularly suggest that the seat plate length should be reduced by an inch or so to 11" rather than 12". This will actually make the model more predictable.

Also, remember that in the real world steel beams only expand to the West, so don't worry about modelling column 38 - there's really no need for it. Also, let's not bother about steel sagging (unless we need it to) as this will just make the math complicated.

Also, it's a mistake to release the input data. This will allow people to check the model and can only lead to trouble. Much better to stick with the NIST convention and keep the inputs to yourself.

Also, I asked a highly qualified friend (she has a bsc in crochet) about the beam stubs shown in the drawings, to the NE of the C79 connection. According to her the beam stubs aren't really there. Sure they're there on the drawings and all specified in the BOM, but they had no purpose whatsoever, and were in fact spare off cuts from the floor beams, so they just connected them in to save the bother of carrying them back down to ground level. I would therefore suggest that these beam stubs are banned from the model.

I am sure that if the above suggestions are taken on board, then the good skeptical souls on this site will have their minds put at rest as to the veracity of the results.
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 24th November 2015, 12:16 AM   #59
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,377
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Ozzie... remember.. I am not here to prove a theory but to understand the collapse in a manner that makes sense and is consistent with how the towers were built and the "forces" present which undid them.

I like or prefer to visualise the sequence even if it's not the precise one... how the buildings undid themselves. I don't know what this can't be done... not a proof...
Sander I am well aware of your purpose - which is that YOU understand what happened. I have already explained what I think is possible and what is not.

I don't believe you will ever get certainty at the detail level you are looking for as to what initiated WTC7 collapse.

What you can be certain of is:
1) NIST has published an hypothesis which is plausible. Sure you have doubts about it but you will never IMO get a valid "disproof" - falsifying of the NIST hypothesis;
2) You have proposed an alternative hypothesis - which as I have said consistently from the time you proposed it - is "plausible". It is no more than "plausible" until some process supports it. I do not see that ever happening;
3) The truth movement claims are dominated by the T Szamboti assertions about "girder walk off" and a suite of debating trickery that T Sz and the "truth" movement engage in. The T Szamboti claims have not been shown to be valid in rebuttal of the NIST hypothesis. If he cannot prove his own claim when I and others have shown where it is wrong - his problem,

So we have the NIST explantion, yours and nothing worthy of consideration from T Sz et al (Pepper, AE911 - whoever makes the same nonsense claims)

Your own choices include:
A) Keep looking for definitive arguments which will prove what actually happened TO YOUR SATISFACTION and at the detail level. Sorry Sander but that will never happen.
B) You back of from requiring detail proof and accept the proof that satisfies me and some others -- viz: There are plausible explanations; T Szamboti et al's claims are not proven; they are clearly unable to present proof and engage in trolling trickery to avoid the burden of proof; AND it is unlikely that you will ever get a proof at detail level - whether from honest rational persons OR dishonest "truthers".
C) There are others but....

The challenge to you is to face up to the reality that:
i) you will never get any argument at detail level which satisfies you;
ii) The advice that I, Oystein, Dave Rogers and a couple of others have given is as good as you will get;
iii) As I am sure you recognise the goal of a lot of debunkers is NOT explaining. It is ridicule of those they disagree with. They will not help your understanding; AND
iv) I don't need to comment on the"truther side" posters - their objective is to mislead you or at least keep you confused.

So - if you accept that as the real scenario for these discussions - I am prepared to summarise the status of debate and attempt to once again respond to your call for help.
ozeco41 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 24th November 2015, 12:46 AM   #60
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
I see you guys on here are loving the fact that someone is producing an analysis of WTC7 for you....I mean....it's just what you always wanted isn't it. And you even get the chance to give your input to the project.
.
Quote:
Earlier this year, AE911Truth partnered with Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey, an engineering professor at the University of Alaska Fairbanks
It sounds very much like AE911 is producing it own analysis along with Dr J leroy Husley. The fact you are already telling people what to focus at this stage kinda gives it away

It's all sounding like the Mark Basile "independent study" which hasn't taken place and isn't independent.
Spanx 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 24th November 2015, 12:56 AM   #61
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
It sounds very much like AE911 is producing it own analysis along with Dr J leroy Husley. The fact you are already telling people what to focus at this stage kinda gives it away

It's all sounding like the Mark Basile "independent study" which hasn't taken place and isn't independent.
Sounds to me very much as if you read my post, and just didn't get it. Understandable I guess.
Do you seriously think that I am suggesting that such a study should be secretive with inputs, and inaccurate with element dimensions whilst not accounting for elements that are present on the drawings?
Why would anybody want to release a study like that? It would be pointless.
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 24th November 2015, 01:06 AM   #62
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Sounds to me very much as if you read my post, and just didn't get it. Understandable I guess.
Do you seriously think that I am suggesting that such a study should be secretive with inputs, and inaccurate with element dimensions whilst not accounting for elements that are present on the drawings?
Why would anybody want to release a study like that? It would be pointless.
Yep, why do an analysis that anyone can be part of ?

Are you saying AE911 are not doing their own analysis ? Which is what they have been doing all along, what's new?
Spanx 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 24th November 2015, 01:30 AM   #63
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 25,261
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
Ahem.... Millette's "work"....
...doesn't need to be taken seriously, because after all it's just a response to a nonsense paper in a joke journal. If anybody took Harrit seriously it might be different, but frankly, out there in the big wide world, nobody cares about any of this.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 24th November 2015, 02:46 AM   #64
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,383
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
A column only needs support in two orthogonal directions. Although the walk-off issue is impossible with stiffeners on girder A2001, I'll give it to you here for the sake of argument. What you apparently don't realize is that even if column 79 had been left laterally unsupported from the north over 8 stories it was still supported from the south and west. An everyday testament to this is exterior corner columns.
Good and valid points.
Now c79 was not a corner column, and thus the framing from west and south was not necessarily dimensioned to be sufficient in the anbsence of the northern girder and the eastern beams - it was, or perhaps wasn't, I can't tell.

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
You may not be aware but NIST had to do some additional juggling to get the west side girders to fail. They say the west side girders failed due to thermal expansion breaking their bolts to their knife connections on the column. However, they have a problem on the girder under the 11th floor as there was no fire on the 10th floor. Column 79 could go at least 5 stories without lateral support. The fires were on the 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13. That means that even if the girder connections had failed the way the NIST report says they did, column 79 was never unsupported laterally by less than two orthogonal directions for more than three stories.
I am indeed not aware that "NIST had to do some additional juggling to get the west side girders to fail". Can you direct me to the sub-section that explains this juggling?

So the 11th floor girder to the west did not fail in their model?
But all of the north girders from f13 down to f6 did, right?

There is another effect that I think played a role: The collapse of 8 floors adjacent to c79 wasn't clean and trouble free - no doubt some of their mass kicked laterally into c79 with large force.


May all these factors be as they are - in the end, the NIST-model ran, and it resulted in the buckling of c79.
And perhaps it is unfortunate that we don't have the details of the model input to scrutinze (frankly, I would very much lack the ability and capacity to do scrutinizing on that level anyway).


Now as for the UAF study - what would we expect them to model to resolve these questions?
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is online now   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 24th November 2015, 04:20 AM   #65
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,688
The westward lateral propagation of failure i n7wtc was caused by the failure of the transfers from east to west...rather than buckling of the row of columns of the north side of the core.... Or so it would seem.
JSanderO 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 24th November 2015, 06:49 AM   #66
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Who determines the "scenarios" and assumption/inputs to investigate?
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
Unlike the 20million or so tax payer funded fraud that NIST conducted, the world's researchers will be able to rigorously examine the inputs.

Well, JSO asked "who", not "what".

Ok so AE911T will show its work. Its work though is limited to girder walk off. The least certain of all NIST's hypotheses. What happened to AE911T's contention that a single column failure cannot lead to global collapse or that the collapse seen cannot occur without explosives?

NIST's analysis showed that a col 79 failure, with or without south side impact damage, would progress to global collapse. Seems to me that an FEA along that line would be more to the point than supposedly proving NIST's 'most probable' initiating failure hypothesis.
jaydeehess 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 24th November 2015, 06:51 AM   #67
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,815
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
The westward lateral propagation of failure i n7wtc was caused by the failure of the transfers from east to west...rather than buckling of the row of columns of the north side of the core.... Or so it would seem.
Kind of looks like cart/horse to me. Yes the transfers failed, which led to the failure of the row of north side columns which in turn collapsed the columns under the cantilevered girders, which gave way and created a condition of an 8 storey drop.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 24th November 2015 at 08:14 AM.
jaydeehess 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 24th November 2015, 06:59 AM   #68
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,815
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post

There is another effect that I think played a role: The collapse of 8 floors adjacent to c79 wasn't clean and trouble free - no doubt some of their mass kicked laterally into c79 with large force.
other lesser contributing factors,
-heating of adjacent flooring and structural members
- spalling of concrete in adjacent areas
South side impact damage stressing the structure
- NE corner low (~6th floor) fires deforming floor beams and stressing the building
etc.

All of these minor factors may have contributed either to girder walk off or to instability once the girder was no longer in play. Therefore in an approximation such as the FEA of either girder walk off or of progression of collapse, if the FEA run comes close to demonstrating it, then the description of "most probable" applies well.
jaydeehess 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 24th November 2015, 07:00 AM   #69
Notconvinced
Critical Thinker
 
Notconvinced's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 337
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Tony , and a lot of truthers, completely ignore the north face 'kink' since it illustrates a problem with their 'all columns destroyed at once", and "it all fell at once" fantasies.

It's readily apparent that an earlier attempt to demo wtc7 failed, and in industry parlance, resulted in a hung structure. It's unimaginable that a rigged demo would intentionally be orchestrated so late in the day, with all eyes watching so to speak. Clearly the additional charges were added to "get it done", with little concern for the unavoidable free fall that will now prove CD.


Sent from our shared looking glass platform
Notconvinced 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 24th November 2015, 07:03 AM   #70
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,815
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
It's readily apparent that an earlier attempt to demo wtc7 failed, and in industry parlance, resulted in a hung structure. It's unimaginable that a rigged demo would intentionally be orchestrated so late in the day, with all eyes watching so to speak. Clearly the additional charges were added to "get it done", with little concern for the unavoidable free fall that will now prove CD.


Sent from our shared looking glass platform
AHHHHahhahahaha

The 'kink' that is a 'hung structure' occurred a few seconds before global collapse. Are you suggesting that in the period of a few seconds it was determined to be hung up and additional explosives loaded in?
jaydeehess 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 24th November 2015, 07:14 AM   #71
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 21,334
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
It's readily apparent that an earlier attempt to demo wtc7 failed, ....
Got any evidence for this, apart from a claim to have seen blasts on the lower floors?
GlennB 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 24th November 2015, 07:23 AM   #72
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,815
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Got any evidence for this, apart from a claim to have seen blasts on the lower floors?
I'm not even sure NT is serious with that post. Must be his idea of tongue in cheek. No one who has actually watched the videos of WTC 7 collapse could be serious with that!
jaydeehess 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 24th November 2015, 07:33 AM   #73
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 21,334
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
I'm not even sure NT is serious with that post. Must be his idea of tongue in cheek. No one who has actually watched the videos of WTC 7 collapse could be serious with that!
I can't believe he's serious with any of his stuff, but some Truthers came round to the idea that WTC7 was "supposed" to have been cd'd much earlier and there was a major delay when that failed. Of course, those fixing the problem would have been working in an already damaged and burning building
GlennB 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 24th November 2015, 07:46 AM   #74
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,377
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
I'm not even sure NT is serious with that post. Must be his idea of tongue in cheek. No one who has actually watched the videos of WTC 7 collapse could be serious with that!
Respectively: (a)He's obviously not if you follow his game playing. (b) Some of the time. (c) Of course.

Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
I can't believe he's serious with any of his stuff,...
- he's getting responses.
...and more of them since he dropped the conceptual level of comments a couple of grades further into nonsense.
...it takes a lot less effort than is being expended by our two currently more active trolls.
...one of whose style brings back memories.

Last edited by ozeco41; 24th November 2015 at 07:47 AM.
ozeco41 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 24th November 2015, 07:54 AM   #75
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,383
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Respectively: (a)He's obviously not if you follow his game playing. (b) Some of the time. (c) Of course.

- he's getting responses.
...and more of them since he dropped the conceptual level of comments a couple of grades further into nonsense.
...it takes a lot less effort than is being expended by our two currently more active trolls.
...one of whose style brings back memories.
And that is the person whom Tony Szamboti singled out as worth reading on this forum
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)

Last edited by Oystein; 24th November 2015 at 08:20 AM. Reason: corrected spelling of Tony's last name
Oystein is online now   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 24th November 2015, 08:11 AM   #76
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,377
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
And that is the person whom Tony Szamboto singled out as worth reading on this forum
At least Tony is a real poster - not some mirage.

Last edited by ozeco41; 24th November 2015 at 08:14 AM.
ozeco41 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 24th November 2015, 08:13 AM   #77
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,815
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
I can't believe he's serious with any of his stuff, but some Truthers came round to the idea that WTC7 was "supposed" to have been cd'd much earlier and there was a major delay when that failed. Of course, those fixing the problem would have been working in an already damaged and burning building
Oh yes, the pre-weakening referred to recently in another thread. The thermite burn that either occurred at the time of WTC 1 collapse, when there were still people in WTC 7, including, supposedly, Jennings and Hess on the 8th floor already(with the myriad of problems with Jennings' timeline), or later when firefighters were walking through WTC 7, or later still when the building's fires were raging and the structure was full of smoke and hundreds of rescue workers and reporters were in the vicinity, and no one noticed!
jaydeehess 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 24th November 2015, 08:17 AM   #78
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,815
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Tony , and a lot of truthers, completely ignore the north face 'kink' since it illustrates a problem with their 'all columns destroyed at once", and "it all fell at once" fantasies.
.
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
It's readily apparent that an earlier attempt to demo wtc7 failed, and in industry parlance, resulted in a hung structure. It's unimaginable that a rigged demo would intentionally be orchestrated so late in the day, with all eyes watching so to speak. Clearly the additional charges were added to "get it done", with little concern for the unavoidable free fall that will now prove CD.
Ok, your chance to be clearer. Were you describing the 'kink' I refer to as being evidence of a hung structure? If not then why quote that part of my post? Why not address the issue of the kink instead.

If you are saying its evidence of hung structure then I suggest you view the collapse videos again(or for the first time, whichever suits best).
jaydeehess 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 24th November 2015, 11:49 AM   #79
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Ok so AE911T will show its work. Its work though is limited to girder walk off. The least certain of all NIST's hypotheses. What happened to AE911T's contention that a single column failure cannot lead to global collapse or that the collapse seen cannot occur without explosives?
Says who? You have a vivid imagination.
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 24th November 2015, 01:59 PM   #80
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,376
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Says who? You have a vivid imagination.
Can't wait to read the results. Will there be a tie into explosives if you succeed in showing the NIST hypothesis wrong? If so, will there be any supporting evidence (besides "it could only be because it looks like it")?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
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
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and 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 06:58 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, 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.