Can the Weidlinger WTC 7 report replace the NIST WTC 7 report?

Tony Szamboti

Illuminator
T
Joined
Jun 2, 2007
Messages
4,976
The NIST WTC 7 report has been shown to be invalid due to the omission, distortion, or ignoring of pertinent structural features which would have precluded its claimed failure initiation mechanisms. It has also been shown that its alleged floor cascade could not have occurred due to a paucity of impact force required to shear the seat of the girder below if a girder had fallen from the 13th floor in the northeast corner of the building.

The ARUP experts report, done for the plaintiffs in the Aegis Insurance Co. v. WTC 7 Properties court case, suffers from the same paucity of impact force required to shear the seat of the girder below. This is true even if the girder below was heated to 500 C (932 F), as claimed in the NIST WTC 7 report.

The report done by Weidlinger Associates, for the defendants in the Aegis Insurance Co. v. WTC 7 Properties case, claims that while the ARUP case for floor cascade cannot occur at 500 C (932 F) it could occur if the steel framing of the floor below was extremely hot, such as in the 800 C (1,472 F) range. The report references a thermal analysis done in 2010 by Craig Beyler of Hughes Associates. The problem is that the Weidlinger report was never entered into the court record, and while it has been made public, the thermal analysis on which it depends for its conclusions has not. It thus appears that the extraordinary steel temperatures claimed in the Weidlinger report are essentially unsupported. This would preclude the Weidlinger report from being considered a valid replacement for the now discredited NIST WTC 7 report, at least until the thermal analysis it depends on for its conclusions has been made public and shown to be valid itself.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
........has been shown to be invalid due to the omission, distortion, or ignoring of pertinent structural features.....
Click to expand...

Hasn't stopped you posting spurious claims for the last god knows how many years.
 
Reactor drone said:
The NIST model had some girders over 650°C
Click to expand...

Not those claimed to have been involved in the alleged floor cascade. One needs to be specific in these matters.

I would also bet you are thinking about the smaller and lighter beams framing into girders, and not the larger and more massive girders. The mass of an item, such as steel structural members above a fire, matters when talking about the energy required to heat it to a specific temperature and the time at specific external gas and flame temperatures required to heat it by convection, radiation, and conduction to a specific internal temperature.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
Not those claimed to have been involved in the alleged floor cascade. One needs to be specific in these matters.

I would also bet you are thinking about the smaller and lighter beams framing into girders, and not the larger and more massive girders. The mass of an item, such as steel structural members above a fire, matters when talking about the energy required to heat it to a specific temperature and the time at specific external gas and flame temperatures required to heat it by convection, radiation, and conduction to a specific internal temperature.
Click to expand...

NIST temperatures are easy to teach in the type of large surface area stack effect fires,
That were seen in building 7.

It is the surface area of the fires and the generation of flow transportable solids and gases that will cause high temperatures when ignited on a hot surface, in the presence of an oxygant.

If you had read the studies I posted in the other thread you would already know that.
 
Sorry I ment to say Weidlinger temperatures, not NIST early in the morning no coffee yet.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The NIST WTC 7 report has been shown to be invalid
Click to expand...
No it has not. Even if your claim that their probable (hint! hint!) collapse sequence had errors were correct, the rest of the report would still stand, as it hasn't been shown to be invalid.

So, at worst it would be a problem of NIST having made one or two building safety recommendations that are not fully justified. We don't need any new investigation to amend that, as the recommendations are sane and reasonable anyway, and they are not laws so constructors are free to ignore them.
 
pgimeno said:
No it has not. Even if your claim that their probable (hint! hint!) collapse sequence had errors were correct, the rest of the report would still stand, as it hasn't been shown to be invalid.

So, at worst it would be a problem of NIST having made one or two building safety recommendations that are not fully justified. We don't need any new investigation to amend that, as the recommendations are sane and reasonable anyway, and they are not laws so constructors are free to ignore them.
Click to expand...

Plus the NIST investigation was never ment to be a criminal investigation, only a structural academic investigation to determine probable cause of failure.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The NIST WTC 7 report has been shown to be invalid due to the omission, distortion, or ignoring of pertinent structural features which would have precluded its claimed failure initiation mechanisms. It has also been shown that its alleged floor cascade could not have occurred due to a paucity of impact force required to shear the seat of the girder below if a girder had fallen from the 13th floor in the northeast corner of the building.

The ARUP experts report, done for the plaintiffs in the Aegis Insurance Co. v. WTC 7 Properties court case, suffers from the same paucity of impact force required to shear the seat of the girder below. This is true even if the girder below was heated to 500 C (932 F), as claimed in the NIST WTC 7 report.

The report done by Weidlinger Associates, for the defendants in the Aegis Insurance Co. v. WTC 7 Properties case, claims that while the ARUP case for floor cascade cannot occur at 500 C (932 F) it could occur if the steel framing of the floor below was extremely hot, such as in the 800 C (1,472 F) range. The report references a thermal analysis done in 2010 by Craig Beyler of Hughes Associates. The problem is that the Weidlinger report was never entered into the court record, and while it has been made public, the thermal analysis on which it depends for its conclusions has not. It thus appears that the extraordinary steel temperatures claimed in the Weidlinger report are essentially unsupported. This would preclude the Weidlinger report from being considered a valid replacement for the now discredited NIST WTC 7 report, at least until the thermal analysis it depends on for its conclusions has been made public and shown to be valid itself.
Click to expand...

What does any of this have to do with 9/11 Conspiracy theories? If you don't think unfought fires and damage brought the building down, what did?

Please be specific and provide evidence along with a coherent explanation that ties together the events of that day. I mean you've been asked this several times on this forum and the fact you continue to dodge these questions is very telling.
 
Can the Weidlinger WTC 7 report replace the NIST WTC 7 report?
Click to expand...
False Dichotomy

While you wish to invalidate any and all reports on WTC 7 due to details around the initial failure, the fact remains that all reports identify fire as the cause of initial failures which then lead to progressive global collapse.

In fact positively identifying the first major failure is impractical. The reports attempt to find a "probable" initiating event within the constraints of known factors. Absolutely, positively identifying the first major failure initiating global collapse sequence is NOT required.

BECAUSE

The absolute simple TRUTH of the matter is that there is NO other identifiable driver of initial failures other than impact damage, which was determined to not be extensive enough to directly cause an initial failure in the global collapse progression, or fire.
 
Last edited:
No, NIST report is not invalid. If anything AE911T reports are invalid "due to the omission, distortion, or ignoring of pertinent" data.

NIST made it quite clear it was a "probable" explanation. Tony, when can we expect to see the concise detailed report on how WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition? You keep ignoring the question.

Where would charges need to be placed to produce the results we have seen regarding WTC7?
 
I do not bother reading the OP - the thread title suffices, for it is stupid.

Tony asks: "Can the Weidlinger WTC 7 report replace the NIST WTC 7 report?"

The answer is: Of course not!

The reason for the answer is simple, easy, and it boggles the mind why Tony is not perfectly aware of it: The reports served completely different purposes.


However, it is rather obvious that both reports, as well as the studies by ARUP, FEMA and others, augment the growing understanding of building performance.
 
jaydeehess said:
By that you mean the utter omission of producing any competing report?
Click to expand...

Tony needs to take this before a congressional panel, and testify under oath, that he is doing competent forensic engineering, when they let him out of what ever hole they put him in in a few years he can come back and tell US all about the adventure standing up for justice!:rolleyes:
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
I am still waiting for his nessisary experimental evidence to prove his claim.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter.

Tony can claim these reports are false and he's the only person who has figured it out (without evidence) all he wants.

Even without any of those reports the only extant possible culprit for the loss of 7 WTC is fire. Any amount of chasing tiny unprovable details in any of these reports doesn't change what has already happened.

Time for Tony to start displaying some honesty and make an affirmative, prima facie case for CD since we know he doesn't give a flying flea about fire safety. Anything short of that is not worth discussing. Continuing the discussion just gives Tony exactly what he wants and removes his obligation to do what he actually needs to do.

Don't indulge him.
 
Mark F said:
Time for Tony to start displaying some honesty and make an affirmative, prima facie case for CD since we know he doesn't give a flying flea about fire safety.
Click to expand...

Oh I think Tony does have some concern for fire safety. In the case of the WTC structures though, it runs a very distant second to furthering his political world view motivated agenda.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The NIST WTC 7 report has been shown to be invalid due to the omission, distortion, or ignoring of pertinent structural features. ...
Click to expand...
By who? Nobody. The big lie of 9/11 truth, use bash NIST and all rational studies, and back in the fantasy of CD, the inside job.

Got some evidence for the CD, No, you are stuck with bashing studies. How does bashing NIST and other studies help support the lie of CD based on a paranoid fantasy.

Why would an engineer resort to this behavior for a fantasy of CD? To get on CNN? Are we shills for the NWO?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The NIST WTC 7 report has been shown to be invalid due to the omission, distortion, or ignoring of pertinent structural features which would have precluded its claimed failure initiation mechanisms. It has also been shown that its alleged floor cascade could not have occurred due to a paucity of impact force required to shear the seat of the girder below if a girder had fallen from the 13th floor in the northeast corner of the building.

The ARUP experts report, done for the plaintiffs in the Aegis Insurance Co. v. WTC 7 Properties court case, suffers from the same paucity of impact force required to shear the seat of the girder below. This is true even if the girder below was heated to 500 C (932 F), as claimed in the NIST WTC 7 report.

The report done by Weidlinger Associates, for the defendants in the Aegis Insurance Co. v. WTC 7 Properties case, claims that while the ARUP case for floor cascade cannot occur at 500 C (932 F) it could occur if the steel framing of the floor below was extremely hot, such as in the 800 C (1,472 F) range. The report references a thermal analysis done in 2010 by Craig Beyler of Hughes Associates. The problem is that the Weidlinger report was never entered into the court record, and while it has been made public, the thermal analysis on which it depends for its conclusions has not. It thus appears that the extraordinary steel temperatures claimed in the Weidlinger report are essentially unsupported. This would preclude the Weidlinger report from being considered a valid replacement for the now discredited NIST WTC 7 report, at least until the thermal analysis it depends on for its conclusions has been made public and shown to be valid itself.
Click to expand...

Time to first lie - first sentence.

Welcome back!

:dl:
 
Mark F said:
Even without any of those reports the only extant possible culprit for the loss of 7 WTC is fire. Any amount of chasing tiny unprovable details in any of these reports doesn't change what has already happened.
Click to expand...

Quite. Since Tony abandoned the affirmative proof strategy embodied in the Missing Jolt nonsense - possibly because on some level he's realized it's nonsense, but more likely because for some unfathomable reason the world has failed to acknowledge his genius on this specific occasion so he needs to demonstrate it some other way - he's focused on a mixture of affirming the consequent, reversal of the burden of proof, appeal to incredulity, well-poisoning, and proof by assertion, to say that he doesn't believe certain temperatures could be reached therefore they weren't, that his expertise on this as an engineer over-rides anyone else's whatever their qualifications, that this demonstrates that none of the WTC reports are valid, that if none of them are valid then the collapse can only have been due to explosives, and that anybody disagreeing this is both an idiot and a paid disinformation agent. It's a heady cocktail of fallacies, and I think we all find it very entertaining.

Dave
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
Quite. Since Tony abandoned the affirmative proof strategy embodied in the Missing Jolt nonsense.......he needs to demonstrate it some other way - he's focused on a mixture of affirming the consequent, reversal of the burden of proof, appeal to incredulity, well-poisoning, and proof by assertion, to say that he doesn't believe certain temperatures could be reached therefore they weren't, that his expertise on this as an engineer over-rides anyone else's whatever their qualifications, that this demonstrates that none of the WTC reports are valid, that if none of them are valid then the collapse can only have been due to explosives, and that anybody disagreeing this is both an idiot and a paid disinformation agent........

Dave
Click to expand...
That's a good, concise summary
 
Now that you've had a week off to re-read things and think them through, do you still want to defend Korol's clearly erroneous heating theory as an alternative to NIST's and WAI's, or are we beyond that and you just want to understand how and why NIST and WAI wound up with different outcomes given their different assumptions about unknowable variables?

The latter conversation is one that we've also already had (scroll down for the whole back-and-forth), by the way.
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
By that you mean the utter omission of producing any competing report?
Click to expand...

Pretty much. I have asked Tony numerous times to point to a site that has a detailed CD report. The non response means non exists.

If it was CD, I would like to know where the charges would have to be placed to provide the collapse that happened. What type of charges used, how they survived the fires, etc. Of course all of this would have to be backed with evidence.

One truther on another site came back with an answer of the charges would be placed where NIST stated the building failed. Yet, no evidence of explosives, etc was presented. It was laughable.
 
jaydeehess said:
Oh I think Tony does have some concern for fire safety. In the case of the WTC structures though, it runs a very distant second to furthering his political world view motivated agenda.
Click to expand...

Why would he have any concerns regarding fire safety? According to Tony, WTC7 was brought down by CD. I have asked him what safety rules need to be developed to stop future buildings from being demolished by CD. No reply.
 
FFTR said:
One truther on another site came back with an answer of the charges would be placed where NIST stated the building failed. Yet, no evidence of explosives, etc was presented. It was laughable.
Click to expand...

Yet CT's often claim either Col. 79 did not fail or its failure would not have resulted in the collapse of the building :confused:
 
Why would one "replace" the other? Why wouldn't you gather all of the available studies (NIST, FEMA, ARUP, Weidlinger and the Aegis reports) and use them as an amalgamation of information?
 
FFTR said:
One truther on another site came back with an answer of the charges would be placed where NIST stated the building failed. Yet, no evidence of explosives, etc was presented. It was laughable.
Click to expand...

I have often stated that the truth movement would have been better served to claim something like that.
However Tony is an example of the common truther in the regard that he will not allow NIST to be correct about much of anything beyond the date and time of the events. It just goes against his very soul.

It's "the gov't lies, so anything at all that the a gov't agency puts out is lies all the way down"
 
Tony Szamboti said:
ders. The mass of an item, such as steel structural members above a fire, matters when talking about the energy required to heat it to a specific temperature and the time at specific external gas and flame temperatures required to heat it by convection, radiation, and conduction to a specific internal temperature.
Click to expand...


Let's take a look at what fire did to WTC structural steel.


horseshoe1.jpg


horseshoe_steel.jpg


shearstub.png
 
Last edited:
traxy said:
Why would one "replace" the other? Why wouldn't you gather all of the available studies (NIST, FEMA, ARUP, Weidlinger and the Aegis reports) and use them as an amalgamation of information?
Click to expand...

Makes sense. After all, every one of them deals with a healthy amount of assumptions and unknowables so that one can not possibly replace any other.

But it is because that makes sense - and because CT's are black-and-white thinkers - that it has to be either/or. Otherwise it becomes harder for them to win.
 
Mark F said:
Makes sense. After all, every one of them deals with a healthy amount of assumptions and unknowables so that one can not possibly replace any other.

But it is because that makes sense - and because CT's are black-and-white thinkers - that it has to be either/or. Otherwise it becomes harder for them to win.
Click to expand...

I'm sure none of the studies are 100% accurate. You're dealing with thousands of variables and simulations. The chances that any of the studies got the failure sequence completely correct down to every last rivet are probably nil.

The most important thing to draw from this is could the building plausibly collapse due to internal failures induced by office fires. So far every single study has concluded that it certainly could.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
I would also bet you are thinking about the smaller and lighter beams framing into girders, and not the larger and more massive girders. The mass of an item, such as steel structural members above a fire, matters when talking about the energy required to heat it to a specific temperature and the time at specific external gas and flame temperatures required to heat it by convection, radiation, and conduction to a specific internal temperature.
Click to expand...

I do find it interesting how such things morph in the mind of the truth movement.
The first few years of all this, I recall being told over and over again that fire could not bring down a steel building because steel conducted heat so well that it would transport the heat of the fire to floors that did not have fire and dissipate the heat there.
Of course pointing out that this was wrong, that there would be a temp gradient (and a few other factors) made me and others just shills for the Official Story.
Tony is correct of course in the regard that there are several factors involved in raising the temp of a steel structural member and that a gradient will be established between surface and inner volume.

I don't recall Tony Szamboti being there correcting the truthers putting forth the above fantasy though.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Not those claimed to have been involved in the alleged floor cascade. One needs to be specific in these matters.

I would also bet you are thinking about the smaller and lighter beams framing into girders, and not the larger and more massive girders. The mass of an item, such as steel structural members above a fire, matters when talking about the energy required to heat it to a specific temperature and the time at specific external gas and flame temperatures required to heat it by convection, radiation, and conduction to a specific internal temperature.
Click to expand...

Tony--why are you so often just factually wrong?

Look at page B-83 of the WAI report. The maximum temperature a structural element is shown to have reached is "792 C +", and that beam was not one of the major girders (screenshot of the relevant graphic attached for reference). In contrast, the maximum temperature similar beams reached in the NIST simulation was "675 C +". There is a potential discrepancy there, but it is neither as large nor of the type that you as you seek to portray in this thread.

EDIT: it's also worth noting that the beam with the hottest temperature in the attached chart was not the likely locus of the failure in WAI's estimation. Don't take my word for it--just keep reading the report beyond pg. B-83.
 

Attachments

  • WAI WTC7 report pg B83.jpg
    WAI WTC7 report pg B83.jpg
    42.5 KB · Views: 6
Last edited:
traxy said:
Why would one "replace" the other? Why wouldn't you gather all of the available studies (NIST, FEMA, ARUP, Weidlinger and the Aegis reports) and use them as an amalgamation of information?
Click to expand...

Conspiricists and other woo lovers avoid consilience like the plague, because it is the end of the line for them. Compare: Holocaust denial, anti-vaxxers.

Changing their mind on a conclusion is hard, change is scary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom