Critical Errors and Omissions in WTC7 Report Uncovered

Mick.

I know its frustrating running a debunk site and being unable to do that, but there always has to be a first time.

Why not 'man up' and concede that gerry has discovered something that does indeed require much more investigation as it appears to provide grounds to re-investigate NISTs contention that the girder spanning 79 -44 on floor 13 was the 'trigger' to the global collapse ?

No-one will think any the less of you. In fact the reverse would happen, even within your own community. You would gain credibility as an honest and fair researcher.

 

But thats not what NIST said. They said that it DID fall.

NIST said that the girder on floor 13 dropped to the west having been pushed there by beams expanding.

Thats the point you continue to swerve around.

I absolutely agree that a floor collapse on any one of many floors could have happened by any number of different local failures. That isn't in dispute. Could have is the operative word.

BUT when NIST, in that multi-million dollar report, wrote that it was a particular girder on a particular floor, and then misrepresented the elements surrounding that connection, which, if correctly modelled and calculated would have not allowed that girder to drop - then do you not think that they should be asked to discover the real initiating event or simply say they don't know.

Do you find it helpful to support such a false report?

And yet again you are trying to divert attention by your comment -"Unless y'all are claiming etc".

Don't forget that others are watching your ploys here.

Until you have provided evidence to debunk gerry's claim it remains un-debunked.

 

NIST used real world photos of fire for example which do not square with what they used in their models and they provide no data for their models so they cannot be checked. This is not science, so you should not try to use it as evidence. NIST have left you in a position where you cannot. It's their fault, not yours. But to continue to peddle their models as evidence is a mistake you are making, this will be a serious error if you do not stop doing that, and an obvious one to anyone reading this thread, and many people are, and many without actually logging in and registering. Retain your credibility and stop using cartoons with no data as if they are evidence.

No let's face the reality that you have the data from our analysis and are unable to debunk it. Our analysis is a finite element one, and an accurate one that unlike NISTs takes into account the proper dimensions and all the elements at the connection. You cannot debunk it. You have tried.

Bolding mine.

My statement should read. "Excuse me, but it does not look like is impossible that girder could have been pushed that far and when the correct dimensions and elements are applied to the connection the factor you are in error by is more than 2., and even if it was there were probably The structural drawings that you claim to have used and that you have provided me with, clearly show the existence of stiffener plates on the connection that you omitted them from, which means the girder would not have fallen. Your analysis and initiating event is therefor impossible and your report is invalidated.

Supposition. NIST make some very clear claims in their report that are now clearly invalidated. If you or jazzy want to claim this, you need to present some evidence and data for it. And even if you could, it does not square with NISTs report and therefor invalidates their hypothesis.

If as you claim, you are all about truth and science, you need to respect the former before you claim the latter. Again, walk the walk Mick.

 

So NIST got that wrong as well, at least you have admitted that.

 

Ok, you are clearly not about science and truth in this debate now. You have reverted to using the models for which you have no data and you are referring to hypothetical scenarios because they suit your case. Disingenuous at best.
You had a chance here to prove to those watching that this forum was all about "science and truth" as you claim. Shame that you have not shown the fortitude to take that opportunity and show that this forum is in fact a place where integrity is the norm. This is a huge chance that you have missed, as it could have set this forum apart from the norm. Shame.

 

See above.

 

Mick
I think the best thing to do is just to lock this thread now, and let anybody who wants to come to their own conclusion about this topic read the info and leave it at that.
start a new thread about their models and animations, they have no relevance to this one.

 

It has been very productive, i agree. But you are clinging to evidence that you have no data for and trying to use it to counter evidence that has been presented to you in a very full and open way. The reason you are backed into that corner is because NIST have not been open with their evidence and they are to blame for that. NIST claim everything and admit nothing, and that is not fair, but regardless, that does not excuse your use of their models etc as if you have something to substantiate them with. ie data. You don't have that, but it is the only option that you have left. I presume you will continue to use it though, and that does not represent a fair and open way to debate, and this forum deserves better.

 

I think we need to be aware of the context here. If we are going to be accurate then I don't think you should act like gerrycan has credibility, he certainly doesn't approach this topic scientifically or logically. Do you really think it is legitimate to put out a video that gives the false impression that fires didn't cause any failures in WTC 5? (to start this thread asking for suggestions to improve the video and when given constructive criticism, to reply with "You are free to draw your own conclusions." Meaning his isn't going to change the deception in the video and allow viewers to know that fires caused failures in WTC 5.) Do you really think we should act like it is credible to refuse to answer if they think that fires caused the collapse of WTC7? His video plays clip after clip which deceptively omits the start of the collapse with the penthouse for goodness sakes. (UPDATE: I now learn it was already brought to his attention in another forum before he uploaded his videos and he said "sure" about including it:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/cr...wtc7-report-uncovered.2332/page-14#post-69852
)

I have found this conspiracy about supposed controlled demolition to be extremely unfair and destructive to efforts at social activism and efforts to achieve justice. If you are going to edit out a word I used to describe the assumptions of this thread because it was supposedly "impolite," what do you call the actions and attitude of gerrycan?

 

@Representative Press

• Do you think the NIST report is scientifically sound?

 

Seems like it to me. What I do know is the videos we were asked to look at certainly are not scientifically sound. I don't know why asking for sources or data was "unreasonable." I don't buy the premise of the video that supposedly they caught NIST not getting the length of the expansion correct. The gist of which was supposedly that the fires could have only lengthened the steel so far and just short of the distance necessary to unseat the beam at column 79 and these video scientists supposedly caught something that was off by an inch. I asked gerrycan for their data and he was unwilling to provide it.

NIST said "about" as far as the length anyway, I don't think any exact measurements were given. The data for the chart was not provided leading one to suspect that the chart was just extrapolated backward from claimed distance in order to "prove" the beams couldn't have expanded as far because they would supposedly have sagged. I didn't see any proof for that claim. I asked how much force would they still have been able to provide (above the 600C ) and didn't get an answer.

 

Brilliant idea for a thread Mick, I will get to it. I will now post a summary of where we are on this one, and how we got here. I am sorry for the long windedness of the post that will follow

 

I thought we settled that. What data is Gerry not providing? We can ask him for it again.

 

I am gong to try and sum up where we are in this debate, and I am going to use Micks input to do so, because he has stuck to the thread topic quite well.
#1 topic introduced as "Critical Errors and Omissions in WTC7 Report Uncovered"
#10 mick asked - Is there any evidence of shear studs in the debris photos?
That was established. The relevant beams did have, but the girder is in question. I accept that.
The shear stud issue however is not relevant to the analysis because it is totally unrestrained expansion that we used. ie no shear studs anywhere.

#83 Mick accepts that the underseat plate 'pf' is in fact 12". Something that NIST got wrong then released an erratum statement to confirm this error. They did not address the consequences of their new 'walk off' distance though which is impossible ny their own standards. Later in the debate, the whole walk off issue is downplayed though as irrelevant, this is because it does not suit the debunking side to admit that the walkoff distance is impossible. If it was irrelevant NIST would not have made it a central issue in their collapse initiation hypothesis.
There follows much talk about how the shear studs would possibly inhibit the walk off. It is clearly established that the walk off distance proposed by NIST is impossible when Mick is given the figures in#165 and concurs that the MAXIMUM expansion that the beams could experience is in fact 4.67". Less than any figure that NIST proposes.
This is the reason that the 'walk off' is later alleged to be irrelevant to the initiation of collapse - because the figures are a slam dunk that cannot be disputed and are admitted early in the thread.
This attitude that 'if it doesn't suit the debunking side, it is not relevant' will become a common theme.

#111 Mick is presented with the correct dimensions and elements for the connection as per the drawings but still does not understand the relevance of the stiffener plates on the girder, and continues to focus in on shear studs, which are not relevant as the expansion used is unrestrained. He calles my case 'very weak'


#135 Mick attempts to tell me what I think about the towers. A topic that I have not even mentioned once in the thread. He wrongly asserts that verinage can bring down a steel building, which rings alarm bells with me right away on an engineering level.In the next post he asks for a copy of our spreadsheet, but he should really do his own math rather than trusting our sheet, so he is given the figures to use in order to do his
own calculation.
In post #160 Mick asks for my answer to the equation of expansion, which I give him, aswell as providing him with more figures than he needs to do the math himself in #165.

#172 Mick has obviously checked tha math for expansion, and instead of referring to where NIST clearly state that the walk off distance is 6.25" rather than 5.5" in HIS OWN EARLIER POST of the erratum statement, he instead asks "Is there somewhere in the NIST report that actually claims a longer expansion?" Ridiculous, and nothing
to do with getting to the truth of this matter via science. This is an avoidance tactic clearly. He then reverts to computer simulation figures by NIST which by his own admission are invalid due to the element dimensions used being wrong, and the absence of the all important stiffener plates. Despite posting the erratum statement from NIST himself he asks "So where is the long expansion needed?" ridiculous really.

#176 Despite the said erratum post from Mick he says in #176 "640.69*.00000701*1040 = 4.67, but like I said, NIST never claims a longer expansion." They clearly do an Mick knows this by way of his own post. He continues to try and avoid the issue by posting tables that refer to NISTs model, which did not have the correct elements
in it.(4.67" is the maximum expansion in the longest beam as stated in the video - Mick is unable to dispute it)

He continues his avoidance by continually referring to MODEL outputs from NIST but doesn't realise for example that table 8-2 refers to the model and not the building itself as per NIST until #179, after he is shown the absurdities of relating hypothetical simulation data to the final report analysis. Important to note though that
he will later try to use this hypothetical data to argue against NISTs own words because it is all he has left as an option. He states re the simulation data Remember this was just a limited simulation, not the full scale simulation". An inconvenient fact that will be forgotten later on in the thread. He quickly realises that he has shot himself in the foot though and has to retract the walk off distance claim that he made when he notices
that the model explanation clearly states "Thus, when the girder end at Column 79 had been pushed laterally at least 5.5 in., it was no longer supported by the bearing seat" This is crucial, and another inconvenient fact that he will later ignore in the thread as you will see.

He does realise that the models are not consistent with each other though, this is because he does not yet realise them to be hypothetical, he states in #180 "Which seems inconsistent with the LSDYNA simulation results. I suspect that the difference is accounted for by column movement." Of course, he fails to realise that the column cannot possibly move without the girder having been unseated as it is the alleged first girder failure. He puts the cause after the effect, which is backward science, and a very basic error.

#182 Mick then tries to avoid the hard engineering realities that scientifically should have, and maybe by this time have led him to the truth, by introducing a 'thought experiment'. No thank you Mick, this is about reality, not hypothetical nonsense.
#183 Mick tries to get to the 6.5" walk off distance via his 'thought experiment' by increasing the walk off distance by a factor of 40%. He has abandoned column 79 to do this and it is nothing more than dry labbing on his part.
An affront to true scientific research in the search of truth.

At this point the debate is basically over. Mick has abandoned science and has in fact debunked himself. He will continue throughout to try and use hypothetical model simulations to justify his mistaken position whilst conveniently forgetting that he himself stated that these descriptions state clearly a walk off distance of 5.5", even though
when he later uses these hypotheticals to justify his position, he is arguing that the walk off distance is not relevant any more, when the models he is using to argue this were meant by NIST to justify said walk off distance.

I am happy to go into further detail of how this thread has transpired, and if Mick would like to, we can now get down to the hard engineering and maths involved. I would love to do this, but it has to be done in a truthful and scientific way. And to do so would mean that there has to be an acceptance of where we are at in this debate up
until now. If Mick and this site is truly about science and truth, the way forward to facilitate a more detailed debate on this issue is obvious. Accept the truth and let's move on to the real detail of the issue.
Up to this point, I would consider that we have skimmed the surface of the issue in terms of the engineering and maths involved.

This may seem a bit harsh of me toward Mick, but I trult admire him for having put up a half decent attempt at defending that which is indefensible. I could not have debated on the opposite side of this either, and I comment him for even being willing to do so. However, he has been so thoroughly debunked at this point that to continue without some kind of admission of this would be pointless.

I expect a load of long posts after this one from various participants in this thread in an attempt to bury this one. I am very openly and clearly calling on Mick now to address ALL of the above in detail and not selectively.
As he has said, it has been a steep learning curve for him to have come up against a thread that actually deals with engineering and science without clouding the issue with meaningless rhetoric.

Let's see who really is 'all about truth and science' here, and who is not.

 

This topic is discussed here (this is page 6): http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=231838&page=6

If you are the same gerrycan, you wrote "Yes, foreknowledge is an issue, i agree. Fire doesnt bring buildings like this down, and certainly not predictably, or to a countdown." in response to someone posting a link to my video (

) showing that firemen were expecting WTC7 to collapse. Yet the videos you made or promote make no mention of the fact that firemen were expecting WTC7 to collapse.

I don't think we are being treated respectfully here. When asked in that other forum if the penthouse collapsing would be included in the video, the reply was "sure" yet you went on to make or promote these videos that omit it:

Q: Going to incorporate the collapse including the east penthouse next time and a soundtrack?
A: Sure, i think that given the impossibility of NISTs explanation of the column 79 failure, that the inclusion of the penthouse falling would be good to include as it begs the question just what could make this very robust connection fail, because it sure wasn't thermal expansion. Thanks for the input.

 

How many times is rep going to be allowed to derail the thread?
I am happy to discuss this on another thread rep, you are here to promote 3 things, your youtube channel and the jref forum, and the official story of 911. You have no interest in the content of this thread and an inability to comprehend it.

 

How about they just release all their data like any credible scientific investigation would, so that it can be checked or used in debates like this? Costs nothing further to the public, which paid for it in the first place...

 

"derail"? the link is to a forum on the same topic, the rest directly addresses things you said in your first comment in this thread! Someone else already liked the comment. I think people are interested in not only what else was said on this topic in another forum, but what you were saying. I think it gives a clearer picture of what you are up to here. And again with the insults against me about a supposed "inability to comprehend." I think Mick has given you a lot of leeway here to play your games.

 

ok, if you want to direct people to a forum that is, in the words of the jref moderator
"
This thread has long since been off-topic, beaches of rules 0 and 12 aside, discussing the towers (in general), power, etc.
As such, thread closed. Please discuss 9/11 topics in the available threads, as appropriate"

It is 105 pages long, and has in excess of 4000 posts, it went off topic wildly, and the main reason for that was people putting off topic nonsense into it because they had no comeback to our info, and here we are, with you, from the jref forum, homing in on the same topic and posting off topic nonsense and derailing the thread. I am starting to see a pattern here. The jref could not debunk it then, and they can't now. You are merely repeating the tactic, which is exactly what i said you would do, and have been doing. Like I told you in my first reply to you on this thread, this is NOT the jref forum, and I trust you will not get away with the same nonsense here as you do there.What the thread from the competitor forum that you have been advertising since you got here does prove, is that we have had an additional year+ to refine our data and info. You need to get on topic.

Let the fun begin. This has zero chance of staying on topic now i fear. Pity, because at least Mick had some coherent arguments.

 

Thing is I am not playing games. Tell you what, I will go and start a thread on jref for this and we can move the discussion to there. Would that suit you better?

 

One thing that has been very noticeable in this forum is that whenever a point is reached where debunkers have nowhere to go, there are a series of posts that are off topic and require rebuttal which take the the thread to a new page.

The effect is that casual visitors here who do not scroll back very far do not see that telling entry where a failure to debunk occurred.

In order to assist those people to fully understand both those tactics and also the relevent post from gerry - #545 is given above.

Gerry's information remains un-debunked.

 

It does if the basic claim is meaningless.

This thread is entitled "Critical Errors and Omissions in WTC7 Report Uncovered".

This report is concerned with the manner of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, which was subjected to free wandering fires after having been struck by debris from the falling World Trade Center Tower 1.

That errors and omissions have been uncovered nobody disputes. It's the description "CRITICAL".

The bulk movement of whole floors as a long, continuous moving fire caused parts to be heated, expanded, which then crept and sagged, and other parts to be cooled, contracted, and pulled further, would produce, in many locations, motions and forces stronger than first, the studs, then later also the brackets and stiffener plates could possibly endure, rendering the precise design of such details entirely non-critical in the event, which occurred in that part of the WTC7 building which had collected the greatest build-up of HEAT.

To pick on just one detail, one dimension, out of a four-dimensional event, and to stick to it without considering all the other environmental interactions is to not consider 9-11 at all.

So your claim is entirely incorrect, and much more dishonest than you claim NIST to be.

The errors and omissions weren't "critical" in any way to the manner in which WTC7 collapsed.

Unless you believe that a fire-induced collapse occurring a minute sooner, or a minute later, has some meaning.

 

I said what ????

 

This entry is a prime example of what I said in my post #552. Not only an attempt to move the information off the page, so that the numerous casual visitors wouldn't see the point reached, but ALSO an attempt to separate one word from gerry's claim - in strawman fashion - to enable a claim to be made that because one word may be in dispute then the entire title can be' handwaved' away
.
Disingenous in the extreme. Poor debating tactics, and most disappointing in such a forum.

But of course it may have a negative effect, because the calibre of people visiting here can understand clearly why Jazzy resorts to such tactics and refer back to post #545 to see what all the fuss is about.

 

• That this forum agrees that there are errors and omissions is indeed a big move forward.

Unfortunately, it is precisely because of the unscientific nature of the NIST report, that the "critical" nature of these errors can never be established nor disproved. NIST have fought in court for the right not to release the input data used in the model. So no one can rerun the model without these errors and see what the result is.

Consequently, this thread can only proceed on a non scientific basis, with members making up their own versions of the NIST report. Like all other NIST based threads, I predict that this thread will now go around and around until we are bored of the topic.

 

I agree.

But that also means that the thread remains un-debunked.

 

Let it all wash over you. It'll come to you in time. Rules prevent...

 

Have to say that I smiled there.

You say that 'numerous' is an exaggeration - and then go on to claim that a small minority of truthers would look superficially.
An unsupported exaggeration. See the reason for my mirth ?

However, moving on.

When all previous experience shows that no such building has collapsed in the way seen from fire, and that all previous experience of such near symmetrical global collapses have been from CD - then your comment that fire is by far the most likely hypothesis is just illogical.

Leaving that aside though, gerry has at no time here said that he is trying to prove CD. You write that he implied that. A bold claim. I distinctly got the impression that his focus is to put pressure on NIST to come clean with their data, and calculations, for scientific independent peer review, and not to leap to conclusions like CD. And if that leads to a new independant investigation, then the subject of CD versus a 'new phenomenon' can be fully examined. And let the chips lie where they fall.

The route he has taken is to step by step raise doubts about the accuracy of their report and bring that to the attention of a wider audience. As his information has remained un-debunked in here it has been tested by the fire of Metabunk and survived intact.

You try to move the goalposts by saying :- quote " But what really needs debunking are gerry's conclusions and the associated implied conclusions - that NIST lied, that there was a deliberate cover-up, that the building could not have collapsed from fire, that it was controlled demolition ".

If that is indeed what you would prefer to debunk it would be helpful if you asked gerry to put forward that ' implied conclusion' in another thread, and see what his reaction will be.

qed quoted earlier :- " That this forum agrees that there are errors and omissions is indeed a big move forward."

Absolutely right qed.

And gerry's input remains un-debunked.



.