I found the missing Jolt.

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by Georgio

@tfk and Tony Szamboti - How about a restricted thread here?

Oh, that would be hilarious. Do it guys!

[MicahJava]

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw

You have no way to verify your theory he is on site, you are not, lack of photograph does not mean an event does not take place.

It's like debating the existence of God at this point.

[MicahJava]

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw

Goal post teleported to another Galaxy.

The official story only requires a knowledgeable person to make an educated guess, and give a chance for collapse probability, not a certainty.

It is very strange that any person would try to predict such a thing in the first place, even if he was wrong. Are you saying he was right from sheer luck?

[MicahJava]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

No, then. It requires someone noticing that the North Tower and the South Tower both collapsed, that WTC7 was on fire and had severe structural damage, and making a good guess from these rather obvious pieces of information.

And, of course, if they'd been wrong, you would now be arguing that the survival of WTC7 despite serious fires and structural damage proved that WTC1and WTC2 shouldn't have collapsed.

Dave

No plane hit WTC 7.

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by MicahJava

It's like debating the existence of God at this point.

Please be more specific. How, exactly?

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by MicahJava

It is very strange that any person would try to predict such a thing in the first place, even if he was wrong. Are you saying he was right from sheer luck?

Why would it be strange? It would be strange to predict the collapse of a building that - if you kept your mouth shut - could have killed even more people had you not said anything?

Predict collapse = save lives
Keep your mouth shut = people die but at least MORON truthers would be satisfied 15 years later.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by MicahJava

No plane hit WTC 7.

After the 'gash' discussion I ended up assuming you were unaware of this:

(and incidentally, with most of the windows broken on the S side and the aforementioned gash, any fires would be well ventilated)

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by MicahJava

No plane hit WTC 7.

OK, imagine you're deciding whether to go into a building that's burning and has a huge gash down the front. Do you think:
(a) I just saw two bigger buildings than this collapse. I'm not going in there, and I'm not ordering my men in there, because this one looks pretty bad;
OR:
(b) This one wasn't hit by a plane, so I'm perfectly safe, because buildings only collapse when they get hit by planes and all this fire and structural damage is irrelevant?

Jesus. Truthers.

Dave

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by MicahJava

I think you are the one performing the mental gymnastics. Your explanation for the engineer's prediction involves both luck and a garbled timeline of the day's events. Combine that with old tired personal attacks and you have you.

OK you intend to continue evasive and dishonest nonsense.

Have fun trolling - there are plenty of troll feeders who will play your silly games..

I won't.

Let me know if you change your mind and decide to get serious.

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by NoahFence

Why would it be strange? It would be strange to predict the collapse of a building that - if you kept your mouth shut - could have killed even more people had you not said anything?

Predict collapse = save lives
Keep your mouth shut = people die but at least MORON truthers would be satisfied 15 years later.

Ridicule is the only response to this continued stupidity.

One small point of difference BTW - it only needs "prediction of possible collapse" - whether the prediction does or does not come true MUST be irrelevant. The decision has to be made in real time so it has - by definition - to be made before the time of the possible collapse.

And 15 years before any idiotic truther claims framed in wrongly applied 20/20 hindsight.

We can all be thankful that there were no truthers among those Commanders on 9/11.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by MicahJava

It is very strange that any person would try to predict such a thing in the first place, even if he was wrong.

Multiple choice time again. You are a fireman, and in front of you is a building that has suffered structural damage and is on fire. You have just seen two larger buildings collapse, for causes that you don't necessarily fully understand. You are considering entering the burning building in order to fight the fire. Do you think:
(a) I wonder whether that building's going to collapse on top of me and kill me?
(b) I don't really care whether that building collapses on top of me and kills me.

Dave

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Originally Posted by MicahJava

It is very strange that any person would try to predict such a thing in the first place, even if he was wrong. Are you saying he was right from sheer luck?

No he had the education and knowledge to forecast a probability, that is all, no different that a weather forecaster forecasting rain at 50%, he could have been wrong he could have been right, it depended on the fires.
The fact the fires were impossible to fight, without restoring electrical power, ment the fires consumed the building just as he predicted.
That's just how a causical universe work cause A leads to outcome B, which leads to dumb ideas expressed on forums on the internet.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by MicahJava

So you admit that the official story requires someone knowing for certain if and when WTC 7 would collapse only about an hour after the North Tower collapsed? A yes or no would suffice.

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

No, then. It requires someone noticing that the North Tower and the South Tower both collapsed, that WTC7 was on fire and had severe structural damage, and making a good guess from these rather obvious pieces of information.

And, of course, if they'd been wrong, you would now be arguing that the survival of WTC7 despite serious fires and structural damage proved that WTC1and WTC2 shouldn't have collapsed.

Dave

Originally Posted by MicahJava

No plane hit WTC 7.

What does your latest reply have to do with the post chain you are replying to?
Did a squirrel distract you?

[AJM8125]

Originally Posted by MicahJava

Please provide strong evidence for fires before 12:10 PM.

Barry Jennings testimony, Breathless Account 2.0, I believe.

[Axxman300]

Originally Posted by MicahJava

But why are there photographs that show high-pressure water hoses yet the official story is that it was impossible to get adequate water pressure?

Ffffiiiirrrrreeeee bbbbbooooaaatt....:

http://www.fireboat.org/911.php

You're supposedly firing off all of these FOIA requests but you can't Google worth a tinker's dam.

[Axxman300]

Originally Posted by MicahJava

All three are telling vague recollections. It would definitely appear that the engineer-type person played a bigger bole in the decision to abandon WTC 7 than the story is usually remembered.

Cruthers was the Incident Commander. To be blunt - God works for HIM until the incident is resolved.

Where you fail is when you second guess the judgement of hundreds of professionals - WHO WERE STANDING IN THE SHADOW OF WTC7 - some even venturing inside - and made a call on the side of caution.

You're alleging conspiracy where normal people and professional firefighters see decisive and pragmatic judgement.

I should throw in that among those people working the Pile at Ground Zero before and after 7 collapsed was the NYPD Bomb Squad.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Axxman300

Cruthers was the Incident Commander. To be blunt - God works for HIM until the incident is resolved.

Where you fail is when you second guess the judgement of hundreds of professionals - WHO WERE STANDING IN THE SHADOW OF WTC7 - some even venturing inside - and made a call on the side of caution.

You're alleging conspiracy where normal people and professional firefighters see decisive and pragmatic judgement.

I should throw in that among those people working the Pile at Ground Zero before and after 7 collapsed was the NYPD Bomb Squad.

There's a saying that goes"Prudence is the better part of valour"

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Axxman300

I should throw in that among those people working the Pile at Ground Zero before and after 7 collapsed was the NYPD Bomb Squad.

If so, then ,,,"in-on-it"!
obliviously Obviously

[tfk]

Originally Posted by MicahJava

I don't feel like going through my old internet posts, but to this day I still try my best to debunk Pentagon stuff or other falsehoods that I come across.

Here's a post that I made in early 2008.
It took me 10 seconds (tops) to find it.

Originally Posted by tfk

Jessep,

OK, finally someone got back to the subject, and brought up something analytical that can be examined.

For those who have neither the interest nor the background to follow the original "analysis" or this response, consider that 99+% of all structural & mechanical engineers think that Ross' analysis is garbage. By that, I do NOT mean that 99+% of S&M engineers have read Ross' analysis and found mistakes in it. I'd be willing to bet that 99% of them have never heard of Ross. (Like I hadn't until Jessep mentioned him.) I do mean that 99+% of S&M engineers know that there is nothing mysterious or inexplicable about the fall of the towers simply due to structural damage & fire. And this conclusion alone (without going into any more detail) is enough to know that they disagree - vehemently - with Ross.

But let's look at Ross' analysis.

It can be found here: http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id1.html

The first thing to notice is that Mr. Ross does NOT discuss the initiation of the failure at any point. He is attempting to analyze why the top segment did not plop down one story and then stop, with the upper segment perched on the lower segment. In essence, "why did the collapse propagate down to the ground?"

Scroll down to "Analysis"

His analysis actually starts 3 paragraphs before this heading. And so does his first major mistake.

He says "If we assume that the upper section comprising 16 storeys falls under a full gravitational acceleration through a height of one (removed) storey, a distance of 3.7 metres, we can calculate that its velocity upon impact will be 8.52 metres per second..."

Sorry Gordon. Wrong. The building was assembled with beams that were 3 stories tall. You take out one segment of beams, then the upper section falls NOT one story, but three stories. Falling three stories means that the velocity would be 1.7 times higher and the energy (KE=1/2 m v ^2) would be 3 times higher.

Ooops, Gordon.

Next mistake.

"1/ The elastic phase shows a linear relationship between load and deflection up to the elastic limit. The load at this point is the failure load and the deflection at the elastic limit for steel is generally 0.2% of the initial length. "

Gordon is saying a bunch of things here, but they are fundamentally wrong.

The 0.2% strain limit that is typically cited for steel is NOT the strain at the yield strength load, for example. It is the RESIDUAL strain (i.e., deformation) that results when you UNLOAD the member. This has become a standard way of specifying steels that do not have a sudden “yield point” (i.e., an abrupt onset of plastic deformation).

The key point is that the elastic limit varies over a wide range for different types of steel, and is NOT a constant as Ross suggests. The elastic strain limit is easily calculated from εy = σy / E, where σy = yield strength, E = Tensile Modulus of steel & εy = strain at elastic limit. Since σy is wildly variable for different types of steels, and E is constant for virtually all steels, then εy is also wildly variable.

For the steels used in the WTC towers, the elastic strain limit varied between 0.13% (for A36, core columns) to 0.16% (for A441 outer columns) to 0.23% (for HSLA outer columns) to 0.36% (for Heat Treated Steel outer columns).

For the impacted floors, the numbers are 0.13% for the core columns & 0.16% for the A441 outer columns.

This is mechanical engineering 101. If Ross can’t get this right, then there is little hope for more complicated subjects.

The second mistake is a common one that inexperienced mechanical engineers make - thinking that you can only load members up to the elastic limit. You can load members up considerably higher than this stress. You'll simply have residual deflections (>0.2%) if/when you unload them. The actual max stress that you can put on a part is called the "ultimate strength".

Third, and much more critical, you have no idea what the “failure load” is UNTIL YOU SPECIFY the “failure mode”!! This is absolutely critical in failure analysis.

IF the failure mode is “it has to stay pretty & have no dents in it”, then “yield strength” is indeed the failure stress.
IF the failure mode is “it has to hang on & not fracture”, then ultimate strength is the failure stress.
IF the failure mode is “fatigue”, then “fatigue strength” (which is far, far lower than the “yield strength”) is the failure stress.

And VERY PERTINENT to our case:
IF the failure mode is something other than a tensile failure (e.g., a shear failure, like many bolt & weld failures), then the shear strength & shear modulus define the allowable loads.
IF the failure mode is buckling, then the failure stress will be significantly lower than σy, and dependent on the geometry of the part.
IF the failure mode is creep, then the failure stress will be only slightly higher than the design stress: about 0.4*σy

You can't come up with just ONE?

[DGM]

Originally Posted by MicahJava

Are you referring to the recollections and deductions of firefighters, or government scientists who never considered that the fires could have come later?

Barry Jennings also reported smoke and heat early in the morning after the collapse of the north tower.

Is his report good enough for you?

[tfk]

Originally Posted by MicahJava

The person in that video stated that you can clearly see WTC 7 leaning with the naked eye. Please provide evidence for that.

How about this.

This is a screen grab from about a minute prior before the collapse of the EPH, looking for the final amount of lean before collapse initiation.

Remember that NIST estimates collapse initiation started about 6 seconds prior to the start of the collapse of the EPH.




I rotated this screen grab to bring the longest, most defined vertical edge (the one marked "Ref Vertical") into a vertical position. Then I drew the red vertical line beside it (slightly offset so that you can see the parallelism).

That gave me a "true vertical".

I created a vertical line to the right of the western edge of WTC7. I also created the line parallel to the NW vertical corner of the building (slid slightly to the left of that edge in the image above.)

There is about a 2.5° tilt of the NW vertical corner of WTC7, prior to the internal collapses.

On the lower left of the image, I've transport vertical lines, parallel to the original, in order to verify that the "parallelism" holds true across the image, and is not the result of lens distortions.

The parallelism is very good.
Not perfect, but very good.

From image manipulation (looking for "best fits across all vertical lines"), I'd estimate the lean of WTC7 to be 2.5 ±0.2 at this time.

[tfk]

Originally Posted by Georgio

@tfk and Tony Szamboti - How about a restricted thread here?

I'll go for this, if Tony wants to participate.

[tfk]

Originally Posted by MicahJava

It is very strange that any person would try to predict such a thing in the first place, even if he was wrong. Are you saying he was right from sheer luck?

I'm saying that it is EXTREMELY doubtful that anybody made any such prediction at all.

And absolutely nobody made any prediction with any sort of the certainty that you are (stupidly) suggesting.

I'm saying that, just like the myth that "the towers were designed to withstand jet impacts", this story grew after the fact.

There is absolutely zero way that any competent technical person would make any sort of prediction like that.

He'd say, "let me watch it for awhile, to see if the leaning stops, stays increasing at a constant rate, or accelerates. I'll keep you posted as I gather information."

There is absolutely ZERO doubt that the FDNY officials kept in touch with this guy as the afternoon progressed, getting updates.

Apparently, he had gathered enough information by the time that they ordered everyone out of, and back away from, the building, to suggest to him that the building was in danger of collapse.

And that's it.

There is no way for anyone to have predicted, at 11:30 AM, when the building would collapse.

And I don't believe that anyone did.

LOTS of stories grow, and morph, over time.

You, Micah, have not shown any new information about this.
The only thing that you've done is behave like the most incompetent reporter/researcher: assuming that a couple of very specific statements must be precisely, exactly true, as stated.

That is NOT the way the real world works.

And now, this little theory of yours, has become "your baby". That you will defend at all costs, no matter how baseless, or untenable, that defense becomes. Extracting these quotes, writing these posts, assuming that your throwing your made-up precision onto other people's casual statements, makes you look like a biased idiot.

If you've got the bit between your teeth on this absurd little anomaly, then start acting like a REAL researcher & start making phone calls to the people involved.

If you speak to them respectfully, and not like a Twoofer Dick, perhaps they'll talk to you.

If they hang up on you, you can blame all the previous Twoofer Dicks who have harassed them over the years.

Good luck. Let us know how it goes.
Take really, really good notes.
Stay away from leading questions.
__

PS. After you're done, you still have precisely zero evidence whatsoever, that WTC7 was brought down by CD.

You'll have to gather that evidence completely separately.

[Georgio]

Originally Posted by tfk

I'll go for this, if Tony wants to participate.

If he agrees to it, I'll open a new thread.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by tfk

I'll go for this, if Tony wants to participate.

Might it drive you insane?

Over several years he hasn't shied away from talking utter bilge when it suits him, so why would a restricted debate be any different?

Anyway ... it might be fun so good luck. I expect he'll insist on moving it to a different forum.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by MicahJava

I never suggested they should "manhandle it upstairs", I was asking why the Siamese fittings weren't an option.

How could that be an option? Do you even know what they are or figured the pressure needed to push the water to sufficient height to charge the standpipes of WTC7?

I'll give you a hint why the quote you used proves they did not have enough water. They reported the pumpers were "drawing a vacuum". This is very bad if you want to push water to great heights.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Originally Posted by tfk

I'm saying that it is EXTREMELY doubtful that anybody made any such prediction at all.

And absolutely nobody made any prediction with any sort of the certainty that you are (stupidly) suggesting.

I'm saying that, just like the myth that "the towers were designed to withstand jet impacts", this story grew after the fact.

There is absolutely zero way that any competent technical person would make any sort of prediction like that.

He'd say, "let me watch it for awhile, to see if the leaning stops, stays increasing at a constant rate, or accelerates. I'll keep you posted as I gather information."

There is absolutely ZERO doubt that the FDNY officials kept in touch with this guy as the afternoon progressed, getting updates.

Apparently, he had gathered enough information by the time that they ordered everyone out of, and back away from, the building, to suggest to him that the building was in danger of collapse.

And that's it.

There is no way for anyone to have predicted, at 11:30 AM, when the building would collapse.

And I don't believe that anyone did.

LOTS of stories grow, and morph, over time.

You, Micah, have not shown any new information about this.
The only thing that you've done is behave like the most incompetent reporter/researcher: assuming that a couple of very specific statements must be precisely, exactly true, as stated.

That is NOT the way the real world works.

And now, this little theory of yours, has become "your baby". That you will defend at all costs, no matter how baseless, or untenable, that defense becomes. Extracting these quotes, writing these posts, assuming that your throwing your made-up precision onto other people's casual statements, makes you look like a biased idiot.

If you've got the bit between your teeth on this absurd little anomaly, then start acting like a REAL researcher & start making phone calls to the people involved.

If you speak to them respectfully, and not like a Twoofer Dick, perhaps they'll talk to you.

If they hang up on you, you can blame all the previous Twoofer Dicks who have harassed them over the years.

Good luck. Let us know how it goes.
Take really, really good notes.
Stay away from leading questions.
__

PS. After you're done, you still have precisely zero evidence whatsoever, that WTC7 was brought down by CD.

You'll have to gather that evidence completely separately.

Actually he did predict that if the fires were unfought there was a (chance) the building (could collapse) in 5-6 hours after that the fires would die down, and the steel would cool reducing collapse probability. Give you a clue only one Engineer was on site at that date.

[MicahJava]

Originally Posted by NoahFence

Please be more specific. How, exactly?

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

[MicahJava]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

OK, imagine you're deciding whether to go into a building that's burning and has a huge gash down the front. Do you think:
(a) I just saw two bigger buildings than this collapse. I'm not going in there, and I'm not ordering my men in there, because this one looks pretty bad;
OR:
(b) This one wasn't hit by a plane, so I'm perfectly safe, because buildings only collapse when they get hit by planes and all this fire and structural damage is irrelevant?

Jesus. Truthers.

Dave

It would seem like a lot of you guys have realized how crazy the engineer story really is, and have opted for the "lucky guess" theory.

[MicahJava]

Originally Posted by AJM8125

Barry Jennings testimony, Breathless Account 2.0, I believe.

I thought Barry just recalled seeing burning cars and bushes?

[MicahJava]

Originally Posted by tfk

How about this.

This is a screen grab from about a minute prior before the collapse of the EPH, looking for the final amount of lean before collapse initiation.

Remember that NIST estimates collapse initiation started about 6 seconds prior to the start of the collapse of the EPH.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ictureid=10775


I rotated this screen grab to bring the longest, most defined vertical edge (the one marked "Ref Vertical") into a vertical position. Then I drew the red vertical line beside it (slightly offset so that you can see the parallelism).

That gave me a "true vertical".

I created a vertical line to the right of the western edge of WTC7. I also created the line parallel to the NW vertical corner of the building (slid slightly to the left of that edge in the image above.)

There is about a 2.5° tilt of the NW vertical corner of WTC7, prior to the internal collapses.

On the lower left of the image, I've transport vertical lines, parallel to the original, in order to verify that the "parallelism" holds true across the image, and is not the result of lens distortions.

The parallelism is very good.
Not perfect, but very good.

From image manipulation (looking for "best fits across all vertical lines"), I'd estimate the lean of WTC7 to be 2.5 ±0.2 at this time.

I'm really not seeing that same effect on all of the other videos of WTC 7's collapse. You used one still, how do we know it's not an illusion from the camera lens or something else?

[DGM]

Originally Posted by MicahJava

I thought Barry just recalled seeing burning cars and bushes?

Nope. He reported smoke and heat. It's why they retreated to the higher floors.

[MicahJava]

Originally Posted by tfk

I'm saying that it is EXTREMELY doubtful that anybody made any such prediction at all.

And absolutely nobody made any prediction with any sort of the certainty that you are (stupidly) suggesting.

I'm saying that, just like the myth that "the towers were designed to withstand jet impacts", this story grew after the fact.

There is absolutely zero way that any competent technical person would make any sort of prediction like that.

He'd say, "let me watch it for awhile, to see if the leaning stops, stays increasing at a constant rate, or accelerates. I'll keep you posted as I gather information."

There is absolutely ZERO doubt that the FDNY officials kept in touch with this guy as the afternoon progressed, getting updates.

Apparently, he had gathered enough information by the time that they ordered everyone out of, and back away from, the building, to suggest to him that the building was in danger of collapse.

And that's it.

There is no way for anyone to have predicted, at 11:30 AM, when the building would collapse.

And I don't believe that anyone did.

LOTS of stories grow, and morph, over time.

You, Micah, have not shown any new information about this.
The only thing that you've done is behave like the most incompetent reporter/researcher: assuming that a couple of very specific statements must be precisely, exactly true, as stated.

That is NOT the way the real world works.

And now, this little theory of yours, has become "your baby". That you will defend at all costs, no matter how baseless, or untenable, that defense becomes. Extracting these quotes, writing these posts, assuming that your throwing your made-up precision onto other people's casual statements, makes you look like a biased idiot.

If you've got the bit between your teeth on this absurd little anomaly, then start acting like a REAL researcher & start making phone calls to the people involved.

If you speak to them respectfully, and not like a Twoofer Dick, perhaps they'll talk to you.

If they hang up on you, you can blame all the previous Twoofer Dicks who have harassed them over the years.

Good luck. Let us know how it goes.
Take really, really good notes.
Stay away from leading questions.
__

PS. After you're done, you still have precisely zero evidence whatsoever, that WTC7 was brought down by CD.

You'll have to gather that evidence completely separately.

Peter Hayden recalled almost the same thing when he was on the 2008 Conspiracy Files program: "We were concerned of the possibility of collapse of the building. And we had a discussion with one particular engineer there, and we asked him, if we allowed it to burn could we anticipate a collapse, and if so, how soon? And it turned out that he was pretty much right on the money, that he said, In its current state, you have about five hours."

I'm sure you are also aware of the handful of testimonies that say that the first evacuation of WTC 7 came around 5+ hours before it collapsed.

Shayam Sunder has also spoken about this unidentified engineer person.

I'm not holding out hope that FOIA requests of NIST's interviews will be granted, but if they are I'll post them.

[AJM8125]

Originally Posted by MicahJava

I thought Barry just recalled seeing burning cars and bushes?

He also stated the building was "very hot", so much that he was ready to attempt climbing out of the 8th floor window using a firehose. Firemen at the scene persuaded him out of it as the hose wouldn't have held him.

[MicahJava]

Originally Posted by Axxman300

Cruthers was the Incident Commander. To be blunt - God works for HIM until the incident is resolved.

Where you fail is when you second guess the judgement of hundreds of professionals - WHO WERE STANDING IN THE SHADOW OF WTC7 - some even venturing inside - and made a call on the side of caution.

You're alleging conspiracy where normal people and professional firefighters see decisive and pragmatic judgement.

I should throw in that among those people working the Pile at Ground Zero before and after 7 collapsed was the NYPD Bomb Squad.

Information on these "hundreds of professionals"? Are you referring to any firefighter that was there? Also, nice card you played there.

[MicahJava]

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw

Actually he did predict that if the fires were unfought there was a (chance) the building (could collapse) in 5-6 hours after that the fires would die down, and the steel would cool reducing collapse probability. Give you a clue only one Engineer was on site at that date.

What are you talking about?

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Originally Posted by MicahJava

It would seem like a lot of you guys have realized how crazy the engineer story really is, and have opted for the "lucky guess" theory.

Unless you know the engineer, and what he actually said, that is he based the probability of collapse in 5-6 hours on the fuel load in the buildings not on
Physical damage to the building, after six hours the fires would not have produced enough heat to weaken the steel.
Some of us here have actually spoken with the engineer personally.

[MicahJava]

Originally Posted by AJM8125

He also stated the building was "very hot", so much that he was ready to attempt climb out of the 8th floor window using a firehose. Firemen at the scene persuaded him out of it as the hose wouldn't have held him.

This goes back to the very charged debate on exactly how hot the WTC dust cloud was. Don't feel like doing that. All I can say is that Jennings is not a WTC 7 fire witness.

[tfk]

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw

Actually he did predict that if the fires were unfought there was a (chance) the building (could collapse) in 5-6 hours after that the fires would die down, and the steel would cool reducing collapse probability. Give you a clue only one Engineer was on site at that date.

What can you show me about his original statement?
__

Here's my problem with the quote, as it is portrayed.

If I'm taking that measurement, and I the building has fires & unknown amounts of internal damage (but significant damage visible from the outside), and I know that all tall buildings are unique designs ...

... and I see from the transit measurements that the building is unstable ...

... and my best guess is 5 to 6 hours from now ...

... then there is absolutely no way that I'm going to tell anybody "I think that it'll collapse 5 to 6 hours from now."

Because some management dufus might report to somebody, "tfk said it's going to collapse between 5 & 6 hours from now." And based on that, some other dufus might decide, "well, let's fight the fire for another 3 hours. That'll give us a 2 hour margin to pull everyone out before it collapses."

I'm instead going to be REALLY clear, and say, "It might collapse any minute. It's unstable. But, if forced to make a guess, I'd guess 'sometime between 5 & 6 hours from now'."

I can easily see how the first part of the statement might be dropped in the re-telling of the story.

Now, perhaps I'm wrong about this.
Perhaps this guy has some tilt angle that his experience tells him is the critical angle. Perhaps this angle is the same for differing building heights (although I seriously doubt this). Perhaps he's got some chart of "critical angle vs. building height", although I kinda doubt this too.

Perhaps he was able to do some calculation of tilt rate, current angle & "time to reaching critical angle". But I doubt that, also.

Maybe he was going just by his gut.

But I believe it to be incredibly dangerous for him & for others to have said, "I think that it'll collapse between 5 & 6 pm."

Even if that is exactly what I thought would happen.

And I'm a guy who loves to take chances.
That's not one I'd take.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Originally Posted by MicahJava

What are you talking about?

What he actually said and did.