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.
Closed Thread
Old 19th March 2012, 09:01 AM   #281
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,540
Originally Posted by gerrycan
Depends, how hot did it get? And NIST say that these beams were heated uniformly in their analysis, so their expansion would be proportional to their length. I know it's a crazy idea to think that these beams could all go to 600 deg in a few seconds and uniformly at that, but hey, that's NIST for ya.


Originally Posted by 000063 View Post
Citation needed.
NIST heated the entire area to 500oC [girder] and 600oC [beams] in 1.5 seconds.

NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 pg 352 [pdf pg 396]
Ramping of the temperatures for the beams and the girder then commenced at 1.1 s, as shown in Figure 825, leveling off at temperatures of 500 C for the girder and 600 C for the beams at 2.6 s.

ETA: This was in the preliminary "rock off"analysis where the beams buckled.

So why didn't the beams buckle when heated to 610oC* in the final analysis? They can't have it both ways.

*The temperature required to make them expand 5.5" and pushed the girder off its seat - if it were 11" wide.

Last edited by Christopher7; 19th March 2012 at 09:27 AM.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th March 2012, 09:07 AM   #282
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 34,444
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
No, the 11" was what NIST said in the final report. The 1' 0" was what was on the drawing that NIST got its information from.

That is not an innocent mistake IMnsHO.
So, if it was 1' wide the building wouldn't have fallen on it's own?
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th March 2012, 09:21 AM   #283
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,036
Gerrycan,

Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
We researched and produced the videos mentioned in this thread at the beginning. We will happily debate anyone who feels so compelled, real time, in an open forum, providing they are genuinley trying to get to the truth about this. There is more than just a 12" seat under this girder, even if it were possible, the girder would have to walk way more than 6" to get to a point where the bottom of it were unsupported, and also there has been no mention of the sideplates, which NIST also failed to take into account in their analysis. Further,look again at plate 'pg' it is underneath the 12" 'pf' plate and increases the required walk off almost by a factor of 2. I could go on and on......and maybe i will.

Please provide a little bit of information, and then I'll debate you calmly.

How many people are in your group that produced these videos?

Please provide the following:
Person 1 has been a [profession] for [xx] years.
Person 2 has been a [profession] for [xx] years.

Person n has been a [profession] for [xx] years.

I'd just like to know the level of expertise (especially in structural or mechanical engineering) that I'm dealing with.
___

You say that you have been unsuccessful at being able to get a response from NIST, even tho you have tried several times.

Could you please post a sample of one of your typical communications to them. I'd like to get a sense of the tone of the inquiry.

You know, where it resides on the scale of "we have some questions for which we'd respectfully request some elaboration" to "who paid you off to falsify your report?"

You do realize, I assume, that if you ask exactly the same question that they've been asked by the "who are you lying for" crowd, they are smart enough to figure out who you are.

Tell me something, if you had devoted several years of your life, contributing your considerable expertise to the US in its time of need, probably getting about 20% of the compensation that you'd normally get, and a bunch of know-nothing punks publicly & repeatedly accused you of being bought & paid for, accessories after the fact to mass murder & treason, all because they are snot-nosed wet-behind-the-ears punks who haven't the slightest clue what they are yammering about, would you feel "positively inclined to help them part the clouds of their ignorance"?

How about if you had tried to do exactly this, say, 50 times, only to be met with derision and determined stupidity & a complete unwillingness to learn anything. Would you continue to beat your head against that pathetic wall?

Or would you simply say "enough", & ignore the morons?

You'll excuse me, of course. I'm "just asking questions".
___

Are you the narrator for those videos? Is your group centered in the UK, or spread about?

I assume that you are members of ae911t?

You'll get no help from ae911t architects or engineers, of course. Architects don't understand the issues. They don't do stress analysis equations, especially on damaged buildings. And the ae911t engineers … well, they've successfully passed a very effective filtering process that demonstrates them to be in the bottom 1% of the profession.

Sad, but true.

But there are hundreds of independent, unbiased structural engineers in your neck of the woods. Pretty much no matter where you live. They work in industry & academia.

If you got rid or the insulting accusatorial tone, and the ludicrous "I've never taken an engineering class in my life, but I'm certain that these career Professional Engineers are wrong" attitude, and approached one or more of these guys with your questions, I'm certain that you'd find one to help you out.

As long a the 'tude stayed in check, of course.

Why haven't you tried this?


tomk

PS. Your posting history is, shall I say, "curious".

Before yesterday (@2:44 with post #164 in this thread, you had posted exactly 8 times on a total of 3 days.

1 post on Mar 2, 2012.
1 post on Oct 4th, 2011
6 posts on Aug. 24, 2010.

When you started posting yesterday, you replied to a post of mine to Christopher7, and have since produced a fusillade of 36 posts in 1.5 days.

That's a pretty remarkable change in behavior.

Two additional questions come to mind:
1. Is Chris7 one of the members of your group?
2. Did Chris7 ask you to come here & start posting?

Last edited by tfk; 19th March 2012 at 09:43 AM.
tfk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th March 2012, 09:30 AM   #284
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,036
C7,

Now that you're back, I am certain that you were just about to reply to the post that I addresses to you before Gerrycan started his blitzkrieg.

It's buried fully half-way back in the thread. Post #163.

I'll save you the trouble of having to chase it down, and just quote it here:

Originally Posted by tfk
OK, so we have a difference in interpretation of the report.

You claim that "walk off" is a specific term that means the W33 girder sliding (you say 6") to the west until the girder central web is aligned with the west end of the seat & then rotating CW (looking from N to S at the side of W33 girder) & dropping.

Correct?

I say that "walk off" is a generic term for the girder falling off of the seat (in any manner), which specifically includes all the details that are described in the detailed FEA analysis of section 8.8.

In other words, my definition of "walk off" includes all of those steps that I listed in my last post.

That is: W33 expanding, contacting sides of Col 79 & 44, pushed west until catches on inner surfaces of N. webs of Col 79 & 44, compressive stresses rises in W24 floor beams as a direct result of W33 being restrained at ends by column webs, W24 beams buckle & rotate W33 (rotating CCW looking from north), W33 buckles as it rotates & falls.

My contention is that, in the summary, all of the above is contained within the term "walk off".
___

How shall we settle this?

Let's see you make your case by anything other than mere assertions.

Let's see you argue like a grown-up, presenting, acknowledging & addressing the arguments AGAINST your ultimate conclusion (instead of ignoring them) as well as the argument for your conclusion.
Your thoughtful, measured reply …?


tomk
tfk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th March 2012, 09:31 AM   #285
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,540
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
So, if it was 1' wide the building wouldn't have fallen on it's own?
The seat WAS 1' wide and the NIST hypothesis is impossible.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th March 2012, 09:43 AM   #286
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 12,277
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
No, the 11" was what NIST said in the final report. The 1' 0" was what was on the drawing that NIST got its information from.

That is not an innocent mistake IMnsHO.
Your nsHO doesn't matter.

If NIST came back with a retraction, would you be satisfied?

How does this "massive oversight" change the actual outcome of the day?
__________________
Our truest life is when we are in our dreams awake.

-Henry David Thoreau
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th March 2012, 09:46 AM   #287
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,036
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Originally Posted by gerrycan http://www.internationalskeptics.com...s/viewpost.gif
Depends, how hot did it get? And NIST say that these beams were heated uniformly in their analysis, so their expansion would be proportional to their length. I know it's a crazy idea to think that these beams could all go to 600 deg in a few seconds and uniformly at that, but hey, that's NIST for ya.


NIST heated the entire area to 500oC [girder] and 600oC [beams] in 1.5 seconds.

NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 pg 352 [pdf pg 396]
Ramping of the temperatures for the beams and the girder then commenced at 1.1 s, as shown in Figure 825, leveling off at temperatures of 500 C for the girder and 600 C for the beams at 2.6 s.

ETA: This was in the preliminary "rock off"analysis where the beams buckled.

So why didn't the beams buckle when heated to 610oC* in the final analysis? They can't have it both ways.

*The temperature required to make them expand 5.5" and pushed the girder off its seat - if it were 11" wide.
Tell me that you are confused as to exactly WHY NIST brought them up to temperature in 1.5 seconds...?!!

Tell me that you think that NIST believes that this is an accurate reflection of their rate of heating in the fire.

Tell me that you think that this is one of NIST's cheats to get the answer that they want.

Please, oh please elaborate...
tfk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th March 2012, 09:49 AM   #288
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,036
Chris,

Don't you have a thoughtful, measured reply to compose? See post #284.

Or will it be [crickets] for dinner again?


tom
tfk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th March 2012, 10:00 AM   #289
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,230
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
Tell me that you are confused as to exactly WHY NIST brought them up to temperature in 1.5 seconds...?!!

Tell me that you think that NIST believes that this is an accurate reflection of their rate of heating in the fire.

Tell me that you think that this is one of NIST's cheats to get the answer that they want.

Please, oh please elaborate...
You're sooo mean
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 Back to Top
Old 19th March 2012, 10:01 AM   #290
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,540
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
OK, so we have a difference in interpretation of the report.

You claim that "walk off" is a specific term that means the W33 girder sliding (you say 6") to the west until the girder central web is aligned with the west end of the seat & then rotating CW (looking from N to S at the side of W33 girder) & dropping.

Correct?
Incorrect. NIST said "walk off" occurred when the girder was pushed 5.5"

Quote:
I say that "walk off" is a generic term for the girder falling off of the seat (in any manner), which specifically includes all the details that are described in the detailed FEA analysis of section 8.8.
That's the preliminary "rock off" hypothesis.

Quote:
In other words, my definition of "walk off" includes all of those steps that I listed in my last post.

Quote:
That is: W33 expanding, contacting sides of Col 79 & 44, pushed west until catches on inner surfaces of N. webs of Col 79 & 44, compressive stresses rises in W24 floor beams as a direct result of W33 being restrained at ends by column webs, W24 beams buckle & rotate W33 (rotating CCW looking from north), W33 buckles as it rotates & falls.
Ah, there's the problem. You don't know the difference between rocking and walking. The NIST graphics make it very clear that the "rock off" was to the east and the "walk off" was to the west.

Beam buckle = rock off to the east - beam no buckle = walk off to the west.

Maybe this will help you with the "rock to the east" part:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVWm9PQeYtE

And this will help with the "walk off" part:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-eWAuFmjN0

Walking is much slower than rocking.

Seriously:
When NIST heated the beams to 600oC, they buckled but when they heated the beams to 610oC they did not.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over again and expecting different results." -- Albert Einstein

NIST did the same thing over again and got different results.


Last edited by Christopher7; 19th March 2012 at 10:31 AM.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th March 2012, 10:03 AM   #291
gerrycan
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 607
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
Gerrycan,




Please provide a little bit of information, and then I'll debate you calmly.

How many people are in your group that produced these videos?

Please provide the following:
Person 1 has been a [profession] for [xx] years.
Person 2 has been a [profession] for [xx] years.

Person n has been a [profession] for [xx] years.

I'd just like to know the level of expertise (especially in structural or mechanical engineering) that I'm dealing with.
___

You say that you have been unsuccessful at being able to get a response from NIST, even tho you have tried several times.

Could you please post a sample of one of your typical communications to them. I'd like to get a sense of the tone of the inquiry.

You know, where it resides on the scale of "we have some questions for which we'd respectfully request some elaboration" to "who paid you off to falsify your report?"

You do realize, I assume, that if you ask exactly the same question that they've been asked by the "who are you lying for" crowd, they are smart enough to figure out who you are.

Tell me something, if you had devoted several years of your life, contributing your considerable expertise to the US in its time of need, probably getting about 20% of the compensation that you'd normally get, and a bunch of know-nothing punks publicly & repeatedly accused you of being bought & paid for, accessories after the fact to mass murder & treason, all because they are snot-nosed wet-behind-the-ears punks who haven't the slightest clue what they are yammering about, would you feel "positively inclined to help them part the clouds of their ignorance"?

How about if you had tried to do exactly this, say, 50 times, only to be met with derision and determined stupidity & a complete unwillingness to learn anything. Would you continue to beat your head against that pathetic wall?

Or would you simply say "enough", & ignore the morons?

You'll excuse me, of course. I'm "just asking questions".
___

Are you the narrator for those videos? Is your group centered in the UK, or spread about?

I assume that you are members of ae911t?

You'll get no help from ae911t architects or engineers, of course. Architects don't understand the issues. They don't do stress analysis equations, especially on damaged buildings. And the ae911t engineers well, they've successfully passed a very effective filtering process that demonstrates them to be in the bottom 1% of the profession.

Sad, but true.

But there are hundreds of independent, unbiased structural engineers in your neck of the woods. Pretty much no matter where you live. They work in industry & academia.

If you got rid or the insulting accusatorial tone, and the ludicrous "I've never taken an engineering class in my life, but I'm certain that these career Professional Engineers are wrong" attitude, and approached one or more of these guys with your questions, I'm certain that you'd find one to help you out.

As long a the 'tude stayed in check, of course.

Why haven't you tried this?


tomk

PS. Your posting history is, shall I say, "curious".

Before yesterday (@2:44 with post #164 in this thread, you had posted exactly 8 times on a total of 3 days.

1 post on Mar 2, 2012.
1 post on Oct 4th, 2011
6 posts on Aug. 24, 2010.

When you started posting yesterday, you replied to a post of mine to Christopher7, and have since produced a fusillade of 36 posts in 1.5 days.

That's a pretty remarkable change in behavior.

Two additional questions come to mind:
1. Is Chris7 one of the members of your group?
2. Did Chris7 ask you to come here & start posting?
Hi, yes, I am the narrator of these videos. There are 4 or 5 of us who researched this. As for posting my CV on here, i dont think so. Chris7 never asked me to join this debate, and judging from his posts he has enough of a grasp on this topic not to need my back up anyhow. I watch a lot of debates here, but i do not take part in many, as you correctly note.
I am interested to know if these videos have at all clarified the position that NIST take on wtc7 to you. I would be happy to discuss this with you, you seem reasonable. Our intention here is to show NISTs story and where we think they have got it wrong, if you can correct us on some points i welcome that.
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 Back to Top
Old 19th March 2012, 10:28 AM   #292
carlitos
"ms divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 14,396
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Our intention here is to show NISTs story and where we think they have got it wrong,
If you have addressed this elsewhere, I apologize. Why?

Why is a Scottish guy making youtubes about NIST? To what end?

What does success look like to you?
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th March 2012, 10:36 AM   #293
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,036
gerry,

Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Hi, yes, I am the narrator of these videos.


Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
There are 4 or 5 of us who researched this.
As for posting my CV on here, i dont think so.
I didn't ask for your CV.

I asked for the background & experience level of the 4 or 5 that produced your video.

Here, allow me to illustrate. I'll go first.

I'm a mechanical engineer. I got my degree from Cornell University in the mid 70s. I've made my living as a project engineer & design engineer continuously ever since.

See. No CV. Just a statement of "what do you do for a living & how long have you been doing it?" Or, more precisely, "what background do you have that bears on the questions and (MUCH more important) the answers that you are offering?"

Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Chris7 never asked me to join this debate,
I'll take you at your word.

Coincidences do happen.

Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
… and judging from his posts he has enough of a grasp on this topic not to need my back up anyhow.
This convinces me that you have little to no pertinent engineering experience at all.

When it comes to structures, stress analysis, failure modes, etc., Chris can literally not argue his way out of a wet paper bag.

To a knowledgeable reader, Chris would do far, far better going 3 rounds with Mike Tyson than he does here.

The only thing that has saved him from an early grave is the fact that the punches & blood are metaphorical.

The principle reason for his endurance here is an inordinately high tolerance for being shown to be a fool, or the lack of comprehension of the fundamental issues to realize how badly mauled he gets on a regular basis.

Most of us, me included, simply stop when it's just plain too cruel & embarrassing to beat his bloody pulp anymore.

Exactly as will happen here shortly.

Stay tuned.

Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
I watch a lot of debates here, but i do not take part in many, as you correctly note.
Your choice, of course.

Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
I am interested to know if these videos have at all clarified the position that NIST take on wtc7 to you.
Happy to say "not in the slightest".

I get my information from two sources:
1. Bona fide experts.
2. My own education & experience.

Youtube makes no appearance anywhere on the list.

And I am not guessing when I concluded - after about 2 minutes of watching your video - that you had little to no experience in structures.

Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
I would be happy to discuss this with you, you seem reasonable. Our intention here is to show NISTs story and where we think they have got it wrong, if you can correct us on some points i welcome that.
Please answer my questions about your experience. Nobody's asking anything traceable.

Let me ask you this.

You've apparently spent some considerable time "investigating" this issue. You must have produced your version of an FMEA, of course.

There is one component of the connection between the girder & the columns that is by far the weakest link in the design.

Can you tell me which component it is, why it's the weakest link and tell us its likely failure mode?


tom

PS. I've got to get to work. I'll return to this later.

PPS. There are 2 questions that I asked you in my post above that you ignored.

1. Should NIST engineers be expected to continue to reply to accusatory know-nothings?

2. Have you taken your questions to local experienced structural engineers in industry or academia & listened carefully, respectfully to their answers?

Care to answer?

Last edited by tfk; 19th March 2012 at 10:48 AM.
tfk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th March 2012, 10:42 AM   #294
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,540
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
If you have addressed this elsewhere, I apologize. Why?

Why is a Scottish guy making youtubes about NIST? To what end?

What does success look like to you?
I apologize for jumping in here gerrycan but this is the tried and true "ignore the facts presented and ask irrelevant questions in order to bury the facts presented with long winded irrelevant arguments" diversion from the facts tactic.

Last edited by Christopher7; 19th March 2012 at 10:43 AM.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th March 2012, 10:51 AM   #295
GlennB
Cereal pedant
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Fetaland
Posts: 13,580
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
The seat WAS 1' wide and the NIST hypothesis is impossible.
So the extra 1/2" of expansion required to get the c-of-g off the edge was "impossible"? Amazing. Who would have thought the integrity of such a building could come down to 1/2" of thermal expansion, given the theoretical temperatures achieved .

Last edited by GlennB; 19th March 2012 at 10:53 AM.
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 Back to Top
Old 19th March 2012, 11:09 AM   #296
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,036
C7,

Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Incorrect. NIST said "walk off" occurred when the girder was pushed 5.5"
And the question at hand is YOUR interpretation of what NIST meant by "walk off" versus MY interpretation of what they meant by "walk off".

We disagree.

Let's see you make your case by something OTHER THAN mere baseless assertion & repetition of baseless assertion.

Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
That's the preliminary "rock off" hypothesis.
That is one way, your way, to look at it.

An alternative way, my way, is that it is the ONLY detailed FE analysis of the detailed mechanical response of the system to fire, constraints & stress. That it describes the essential details of what NIST means by "walk off".

Again, I am prepared to make my case without simply resorting to assertions.

Are you?

If so, based on history, I must insist that you go first.

Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Ah, there's the problem. You don't know the difference between rocking and walking. The NIST graphics make it very clear that the "rock off" was to the east and the "walk off" was to the west.
That is clearly your interpretation of their graphic.

Forgive me if I point out that there has seldom been a 1 to 1 correspondence between "what NIST meant" and "what C7 claims that NIST meant".

Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Walking is much slower than rocking.
And your belief of the significance of this, um, baseless assertion is … what?

The upper blocks of WTC2 & 1 "rocked" for 1 hour & two hours respectively before they collapsed. Meanwhile they went thru much quicker cycles of thermal expansion & contraction. "Rocking" does not have to be faster than thermal expansion.

Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Seriously:
When NIST heated the beams to 600oC, they buckled but when they heated the beams to 610oC they did not.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over again and expecting different results." -- Albert Einstein

NIST did the same thing over again and got different results.
And you aren't capable of understanding the different mechanical effects that were responsible for this?

That's pretty lame, Chris.


tk

PS. Now I'm late & I've really got to go...

Last edited by tfk; 19th March 2012 at 11:12 AM.
tfk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th March 2012, 11:44 AM   #297
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 12,277
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Hi, yes, I am the narrator of these videos. There are 4 or 5 of us who researched this. As for posting my CV on here, i dont think so. Chris7 never asked me to join this debate, and judging from his posts he has enough of a grasp on this topic not to need my back up anyhow. I watch a lot of debates here, but i do not take part in many, as you correctly note.
I am interested to know if these videos have at all clarified the position that NIST take on wtc7 to you. I would be happy to discuss this with you, you seem reasonable. Our intention here is to show NISTs story and where we think they have got it wrong, if you can correct us on some points i welcome that.
Quote:
Before yesterday (@2:44 with post #164 in this thread, you had posted exactly 8 times on a total of 3 days.

1 post on Mar 2, 2012.
1 post on Oct 4th, 2011
6 posts on Aug. 24, 2010.

When you started posting yesterday, you replied to a post of mine to Christopher7, and have since produced a fusillade of 36 posts in 1.5 days.

That's a pretty remarkable change in behavior.

Two additional questions come to mind:
1. Is Chris7 one of the members of your group?
2. Did Chris7 ask you to come here & start posting?
I too am curious about this timeline. What happened that caused you to return to JREF?
__________________
Our truest life is when we are in our dreams awake.

-Henry David Thoreau
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th March 2012, 12:36 PM   #298
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,540
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
So the extra 1/2" of expansion required to get the c-of-g off the edge was "impossible"? Amazing. Who would have thought the integrity of such a building could come down to 1/2" of thermal expansion, given the theoretical temperatures achieved .
Certainly no one here.

The beam would have to be heated to roughly* 660oC to expand 5.5 inches. It would have lost well over half of its strength and probably be sagging at that point. The beam would have to be heated to 738oC to expand 6 inches butt would lose up to 80% of its strength and sag for sure while being heated to 738oC in the real world. Therefore, it could not push the girder laterally 6 inches.

Even if it could, the stiffeners would prevent the bottom flange from folding for another few inches. Even if the bottom flange folded, the girder would land on the 2" support plate.

The girder that supposedly started the cascade of collapsing floors that left column 79 unbraced for 9 stories and allowed it to buckle, could not and did not happen.


This is not an opinion, its the laws of thermodynamics as they apply to steel beams.


*The simplistic method NIST used is inaccurate. Expansion of steel is not lineal. The spreadsheet shows a temperature 40oC greater than the NIST method to get 6 inches of expansion.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th March 2012, 12:51 PM   #299
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 12,277
Quote:
The girder that supposedly started the cascade of collapsing floors that left column 79 unbraced for 9 stories and allowed it to buckle, could not and did not happen.
So we have what - 3 impossibilities now?

1) The girder that started the collapse couldn't have failed in the manner stated
2) Explosives could not have been planted and detonated to facilitate collapse
3) Therm*te could not have been planted and lit to facilitate collapse


So in your opinion, what's left?
__________________
Our truest life is when we are in our dreams awake.

-Henry David Thoreau
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th March 2012, 12:57 PM   #300
Jackanory
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,339
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Certainly no one here.

The beam would have to be heated to roughly* 660oC to expand 5.5 inches. It would have lost well over half of its strength and probably be sagging at that point. The beam would have to be heated to 738oC to expand 6 inches butt would lose up to 80% of its strength and sag for sure while being heated to 738oC in the real world. Therefore, it could not push the girder laterally 6 inches.

Even if it could, the stiffeners would prevent the bottom flange from folding for another few inches. Even if the bottom flange folded, the girder would land on the 2" support plate.

The girder that supposedly started the cascade of collapsing floors that left column 79 unbraced for 9 stories and allowed it to buckle, could not and did not happen.


This is not an opinion, its the laws of thermodynamics as they apply to steel beams.


*The simplistic method NIST used is inaccurate. Expansion of steel is not lineal. The spreadsheet shows a temperature 40oC greater than the NIST method to get 6 inches of expansion.
What did these beams weigh? Did the lower beams weigh more/less than upper beams? Which beams sagged first, upper/lower beams? Did the columns get pushed out or pulled in...or both? At what floor did this happen first? At what temp did welded areas begin to change? At what temp did bolts begin to change?
__________________
The mind of the bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract.
Oliver Wendell Holmes
Jackanory is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th March 2012, 12:57 PM   #301
Sunstealer
Master Poster
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,738
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Certainly no one here.

The beam would have to be heated to roughly* 660oC to expand 5.5 inches. It would have lost well over half of its strength and probably be sagging at that point. The beam would have to be heated to 738oC to expand 6 inches butt would lose up to 80% of its strength and sag for sure while being heated to 738oC in the real world. Therefore, it could not push the girder laterally 6 inches.

Even if it could, the stiffeners would prevent the bottom flange from folding for another few inches. Even if the bottom flange folded, the girder would land on the 2" support plate.

The girder that supposedly started the cascade of collapsing floors that left column 79 unbraced for 9 stories and allowed it to buckle, could not and did not happen.


This is not an opinion, its the laws of thermodynamics as they apply to steel beams.


*The simplistic method NIST used is inaccurate. Expansion of steel is not lineal. The spreadsheet shows a temperature 40oC greater than the NIST method to get 6 inches of expansion.
Could you expand on the highlighted part please.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th March 2012, 01:24 PM   #302
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 34,444
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
The seat WAS 1' wide and the NIST hypothesis is impossible.
So 12" impossible, 11" possible?
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th March 2012, 01:33 PM   #303
GlennB
Cereal pedant
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Fetaland
Posts: 13,580
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
So 12" impossible, 11" possible?
Depends on 40C either way, apparently Even then C7 admits the beams might have sagged and dragged the girder off the seat before it could walk off westwards (bolts already sheared, mind). What a train-wreck of logic he presents.
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 Back to Top
Old 19th March 2012, 01:38 PM   #304
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 34,444
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Depends on 40C either way, apparently Even then C7 admits the beams might have sagged and dragged the girder off the seat before it could walk off westwards (bolts already sheared, mind). What a train-wreck of logic he presents.
Yeah, I hope we get a handle on this newly discovered phenomenon called "thermal expansion".
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th March 2012, 02:38 PM   #305
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 18,364
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Could you expand on the highlighted part please.
You're just being mean.

__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 19th March 2012, 02:57 PM   #306
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 9,162
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
So 12" impossible, 11" possible?
That's what she....

never mind.
__________________
"Things that never happened before happen all the time." (Scott Sagan, 1993)
"Put down the Wite-Out and step away from the dictionary." (000063, 2012)
"Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof." (John Kenneth Galbraith, 1971)
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th March 2012, 03:23 PM   #307
Jackanory
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,339
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Originally Posted by gerrycan http://www.internationalskeptics.com...s/viewpost.gif
NIST say that these beams were heated uniformly in their analysis,


So why didn't the beams buckle when heated to 610oC* in the final analysis? They can't have it both ways.

*The temperature required to make them expand 5.5" and pushed the girder off its seat - if it were 11" wide
.
Really?

'At Least 5.5" '..........at least........at least...........means minimum in my book. Then they took on the ACME principal......and levitated until it felt like more than 5.5". Isnt 5.5" the average length of a erm........erm...oh never mind. Perhaps it was viagra and not thermite. Yeah.......those beams expanded through viagra.

Hey Jonesy, test that viagra for a thermitic reaction would ya.
__________________
The mind of the bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract.
Oliver Wendell Holmes
Jackanory is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th March 2012, 03:58 PM   #308
OCaptain
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,077
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Ok, you need to look at the drawings. Its not just an extra inch. The plate 'pg' under the 12" 'pf' seat extends the 'walk off' point by quite a bit.
I'm going to ask a silly question. Are you from Scotland?
OCaptain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th March 2012, 04:34 PM   #309
OCaptain
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,077
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
No, the 11" was what NIST said in the final report. The 1' 0" was what was on the drawing that NIST got its information from.

That is not an innocent mistake IMnsHO.
It would be simple enough to email them...you could spare yourself and us all this agita.
OCaptain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th March 2012, 04:39 PM   #310
OCaptain
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,077
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
The seat WAS 1' wide and the NIST hypothesis is impossible.
Prove it was 1 foot wide, please.
OCaptain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th March 2012, 05:41 PM   #311
gerrycan
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 607
Originally Posted by OCaptain View Post
Prove it was 1 foot wide, please.

it is plate 'pf', 1 foot.
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 Back to Top
Old 19th March 2012, 05:43 PM   #312
gerrycan
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 607
Originally Posted by OCaptain View Post
I'm going to ask a silly question. Are you from Scotland?
yes
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 Back to Top
Old 19th March 2012, 05:46 PM   #313
gerrycan
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 607
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
I too am curious about this timeline. What happened that caused you to return to JREF?
someone started a thread about a video i narrated. is that ok?
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 Back to Top
Old 19th March 2012, 05:46 PM   #314
carlitos
"ms divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 14,396
one more try!

Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
If you have addressed this elsewhere, I apologize. Why?

Why is a Scottish guy making youtubes about NIST? To what end?

What does success look like to you?
As others, notably ozeco41, have asked - why? What is the desired end state?
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th March 2012, 05:52 PM   #315
gerrycan
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 607
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
If you have addressed this elsewhere, I apologize. Why?

Why is a Scottish guy making youtubes about NIST? To what end?

What does success look like to you?
Hi Carlitos, i guess success looks like people debating the destruction of this building, whilst taking into account the drawings that have been released. We wanted to draw attention to the fact that nist did not take into account all the elements that they should have, and appear to have 'misfudged' the dimensions of some and the existance of others, in a way that suits their conclusions. Are you asking, 'why are you bothered, you're not american'?
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 Back to Top
Old 19th March 2012, 06:08 PM   #316
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 5,124
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
The seat WAS 1' wide and the NIST hypothesis is impossible.
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
So 12" impossible, 11" possible?
The 12" versus 11" argument is the one C7 is ostensibly pushing BUT watch for the trap he is setting by getting debate to focus on that single issue.

As I stated clearly in several earlier posts his real error is that he is treating the "girder falls off the seat" issue as if it was caused by a single factor - that single factor being linear expansion/contraction caused by temperature. There are multiple factors contributing to the girder falling off the seat - not just that single factor.***

He then claims falsely that:
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
That is the NIST hypothesis - thermal expansion initiated the collapse.
That is an "untruth by partial truth" and Chris7 is aware that I have already "called" him on that untruth - to no avail he continues to repeat it. It is untrue because the NIST hypothesis is set in the context of all the factors impinging on the critical bits of structure - not only the temperature.

So by continuing to engage in debate of the single factor - temperature expansion - C7 is managing to avoid discussing the real situation.

Can everyone be aware of the trap which he is setting.




(*** I am aware that he has made some token references to twisting as if that was a an unrelated separate factor. It doesn't invalidate the thrust of my criticism.)
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 Back to Top
Old 19th March 2012, 06:12 PM   #317
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,036
Hey gerry,

Just checking back in.

Did you want to have that discussion?

Would you answer the questions that I asked you?

And then I'll attempt to answer any questions that you might have for me.


tom
tfk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th March 2012, 06:20 PM   #318
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 5,124
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Hi Carlitos, i guess success looks like people debating the destruction of this building, whilst taking into account the drawings that have been released. We wanted to draw attention to the fact that nist did not take into account all the elements that they should have, and appear to have 'misfudged' the dimensions of some and the existance of others, in a way that suits their conclusions....
...and the point I have made repeatedly and which you keep evading is that whether or not NIST was wrong and whether or not NIST was deliberately dishonest does not in the least way change the topic of "debating the destruction of this building".

To put it so simply that you cannot claim to misunderstanding I will risk an analogy:
If the Twin Towers were brought down by the use of explosive devices in a demolition arrangement it matters not the slightest:
1) Who planned the use of explosives;
2) Who bought the explosives;
3) Who placed the explosives;
4) Who pushed the big red button;
5) Who arranged for all the evidence to disappear post collapse.

So:
Addressing your apparent technical objective -
A) What does it matter whether the support was 11" or 12"?
B) Do you comprehend that linear temperature expansion and contractions were not the only factor involved?

And addressing your socio-political objective:
C) Why do you wish to draw attention to errors or misrepresentation by NIST?
D) What do you want done about those alleged errors or misrepresentations?

And, finally,:
E) Do you acknowledge that what happened technically would not be different no matter how NIST reported the event in hindsight after it had happened?
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 Back to Top
Old 19th March 2012, 06:28 PM   #319
gerrycan
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 607
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
Hey gerry,

Just checking back in.

Did you want to have that discussion?

Would you answer the questions that I asked you?

And then I'll attempt to answer any questions that you might have for me.


tom
Sure, i would welcome the discussion. I am not a structural engineer, but i do have some engineering qualifications. What I suggest you do is just have the discussion, and if i cannot talk to you on your level you can end it, there's no problem. It would be interesting to discuss your take on these drawings and wtc7 in general sometime. As for the other guys, i cannot speak for them. You can ask them for yourself if you like.
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 Back to Top
Old 19th March 2012, 06:42 PM   #320
gerrycan
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 607
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
...and the point I have made repeatedly and which you keep evading is that whether or not NIST was wrong and whether or not NIST was deliberately dishonest does not in the least way change the topic of "debating the destruction of this building".
It does validate the call for a new investigation though.
To put it so simply that you cannot claim to misunderstanding I will risk an analogy:
If the Twin Towers were brought down by the use of explosive devices in a demolition arrangement it matters not the slightest:
1) Who planned the use of explosives;
2) Who bought the explosives;
3) Who placed the explosives;
4) Who pushed the big red button;
5) Who arranged for all the evidence to disappear post collapse.
So, who is responsible for this isn't important?
So:
Addressing your apparent technical objective -
A) What does it matter whether the support was 11" or 12"?
In terms of the walk off theory it doesn't, because the beams would not expand enough to push the girder to fail in either case.
B) Do you comprehend that linear temperature expansion and contractions were not the only factor involved?
NIST do cite this as the initiating factor.
And addressing your socio-political objective:
C) Why do you wish to draw attention to errors or misrepresentation by NIST?
Because i believe that high rise steel buildings are not prone to collapse in the manner that NIST say they are
D) What do you want done about those alleged errors or misrepresentations?
It would be nice to have them corrected, and the demise of the building investigated competently
And, finally,:
E) Do you acknowledge that what happened technically would not be different no matter how NIST reported the event in hindsight after it had happened?
Yes, I agree that what NIST say after the event does not cange reality. Did I misunderstand that question?


Last edited by gerrycan; 19th March 2012 at 06:43 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 Back to Top
Closed Thread

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 10:21 PM.
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.