Critical Errors and Omissions in WTC7 Report Uncovered

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mick West said:
Why not "a probable sequence". But even if it's the most probably, and you've proven it wrong, what's the next most probable? And what after that?
Click to expand...

OK. If you want to rewrite NISTs report using your own words to somehow make your own debunk attempt better then go ahead. Its not a valid tactic in any debate I've been involved in though. And could be seen by some observers as somewhat foolish.

Perhaps I should point out that NIST didn't say 'a probable sequence' - they asserted that it was the probable collapse sequence.

But to answer your second question. That is exactly what a real independent investigation would address.
 
Hitstirrer said:
OK. If you want to rewrite NISTs report using your own words to somehow make your own debunk attempt better then go ahead. Its not a valid tactic in any debate I've been involved in though. And could be seen by some observers as somewhat foolish.

Perhaps I should point out that NIST didn't say 'a probable sequence' - they asserted that it was the probable collapse sequence.
Click to expand...

The most probable. Obviously it was not the only possible collapse sequence, and the girder falling was only a bit of this particular sequence.
 
Mick West said:
The most probable. Obviously it was not the only possible collapse sequence, and the girder falling was only a bit of this particular sequence.
Click to expand...

Only a bit ?

It was the START of their most probable sequence. How does that translate into 'only a bit' ?

Without that START the rest couldnt occur.
 
The girder failing was CRUCIAL to NISTs collapse
Mick West said:
But with a different start it could.
Click to expand...
The girder getting pushed off was CRITICAL to NISTs explanation. Why else would they have the 5.5" claim in their analysis and then go to the bother of releasing an erratum about the walk length if it were not crucial to their hypothesis. No girder falling = no collapse as per NISTs analysis.
 
gerrycan said:
The girder failing was CRUCIAL to NISTs collapse

The girder getting pushed off was CRITICAL to NISTs explanation. Why else would they have the 5.5" claim in their analysis and then go to the bother of releasing an erratum about the walk length if it were not crucial to their hypothesis. No girder falling = no collapse as per NISTs analysis.
Click to expand...

Didn't they release an erratum because you pointed out their mistake, then bugged them about it?

That girder not falling off to the west = different initiation of floor collapse needed, as per NIST.
 
No, I wouldn't dream of bugging NIST, I would have to check on who first informed them of the seat plate discrepancy. What we as a group found were errors in their analysis where they cited the wrong drawings. The major find was these stiffener plates. They make the plate length thing obsolete in a way because of just how much they increase the walk distance in order to fail by. The reason why they haven't commented is because they know that as soon as they even acknowledge that these plates exist, their whole hypothesis is sunk.
I am glad to see your admission that NIST need to find a new initiating event though. This invalidates their report into the collapse and means that the errors are indeed critical.
 
So you now agree that these are critical errors and omissions that have been uncovered in NISTs report into the collapse of WTC7?
 
gerrycan said:
So you now agree that these are critical errors and omissions that have been uncovered in NISTs report into the collapse of WTC7?
Click to expand...

You are playing semantics here. Just because something is critical to one detail does not mean its critical to the entire report. I've explain what I think. It possibly invalidates that one bit of the narrative.
 
Mick West said:
You are playing semantics here. Just because something is critical to one detail does not mean its critical to the entire report. I've explain what I think. It possibly invalidates that one bit of the narrative.
Click to expand...
I am not playing anything here at all. This is a very serious event that has repercussions on a global scale toward building safety. I will rephrase. Can you prove that these details are not critical to NISTs analysis? I feel that I have proved that they are.
 
gerrycan said:
I am not playing anything here at all. This is a very serious event that has repercussions on a global scale toward building safety. I will rephrase. Can you prove that these details are not critical to NISTs analysis? I feel that I have proved that they are.
Click to expand...

If you really want to go down the semantics route ... what do you mean by "critical" and "NIST's analysis" in this context?
 
Mick West said:
You have perhaps demonstrated it would not have become unrestrained starting with a walk-off of that particular girder in that way. You have not demonstrated there is no way it could have become unrestrained.
Click to expand...

Because there is no way of demonstrating that there is no possible or conceivable/imaginary way. It's important to note a shift toward unfalsifiable reasoning there. Worth a mention, given the aggravation that causes for people sometimes.

NIST's analysis indicates that there would have been a lot of damage to connections and members.
Click to expand...

Not only that, it was all "multiple failures... due to fire..." This is probably as it must be.

So there was no need to ever begin pretending that there was some type of rigorously specified science behind that hypothesis and NIST's simulation of an investigation in the first place. The conclusion is as it must be due to a worldview by which conclusions are known in advance. It is not a conclusion or knowledge arising from a scientific investigation or a scientific theory.
 
Last edited:
Mick West said:
The court will dissect your semantics. So better get them straight.
Click to expand...
This wouldn't get as far as that in court. The evidence that NIST got this wrong is in the data that they themselves released in black and white. There is no need to get semantics straight, because that which is being disputed is admitted in the contradictions between the drawings and the report contents. If this debate was happening in a court it would have been over at post#176 where you stated "640.69*.00000701*1040 = 4.67, but like I said, NIST never claims a longer expansion.", and then realised in #180 that NIST said "The bearing seat at Column 79 was 11 in. wide. 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"
At that point in a court, you would have been asked to show your analysis with all data inputs to support your/NISTs assertion, you of course would be unable to do so, as would NIST. However, if you could, the case would proceed afterwards, and there would be no need for semantics. Semantics is all the official story has left at that point.
 
gerrycan said:
This wouldn't get as far as that in court. The evidence that NIST got this wrong is in the data that they themselves released in black and white. There is no need to get semantics straight, because that which is being disputed is admitted in the contradictions between the drawings and the report contents. If this debate was happening in a court it would have been over at post#176 where you stated "640.69*.00000701*1040 = 4.67, but like I said, NIST never claims a longer expansion.", and then realised in #180 that NIST said "The bearing seat at Column 79 was 11 in. wide. 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"
At that point in a court, you would have been asked to show your analysis with all data inputs to support your/NISTs assertion, you of course would be unable to do so, as would NIST. However, if you could, the case would proceed afterwards, and there would be no need for semantics. Semantics is all the official story has left at that point.
Click to expand...

But the semantics are over if it's "critical" to the entire report.

And as I said somewhere above, NIST still did not explicitly claim a particular expansion for any one beam.

And elsewhere I dispute the 4.67 figure, getting 5.46:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/th...e-coefficient-of-thermal-exp.2557/#post-71634
 
Last edited:
Mick West said:
But the semantics are over if it's "critical" to the entire report.
Click to expand...

I agree. They are, and it is.

Mick West said:
And as I said somewhere above, NIST still did not explicitly claim a particular expansion for any one beam.
Click to expand...

From you post #180
The bearing seat at Column 79 was 11 in. wide. 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. Additional
factors that contributed to this failure were the absence of shear studs on the girders that would have
provided lateral restraint and the one-sided framing of the northeast corner floor beams that allowed the
floor beams to push laterally on the girder due to thermal expansion
Click to expand...
What else apart from the beams could have been pushing it?


Mick West said:
And elsewhere I dispute the 4.67 figure, getting 5.46:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/th...e-coefficient-of-thermal-exp.2557/#post-71634
Click to expand...
Only 3 or 4 inches left to find then, if you were correct, which is very much in dispute.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mick West said:
If you really want to go down the semantics route ... what do you mean by "critical" and "NIST's analysis" in this context?
Click to expand...
people ask simple questions and give factual information but the questions he asked was dodged and turned back on him, when the details don't directly correlate or prove anything but side with your argument you use them as indisputable, when its someone else its semantics, I think that's my issue with this whole thing is everyone's interpretation of what really helps prove the argument, because most of it is semantics in that sense isn't it?
 
That's why I like to stick to facts, and not argue over the meaning of words. If someone asks me "Can you prove that these details are not critical to NISTs analysis?" then they really need to phrases the question in a way that semantics does not come into it. (Although generally the answer to being asked if you can prove a negative is is "no").
 
This discussion should have ended a long time ago with the implicit distinctions between "probable" and "critical".

NIST always admitted "probability". Any criticism invoking "criticality" is outside the bubble. That beam lost its straightness as soon as fire reached its underside.

It would have regained it momentarily as it transitioned to sagging mode, and then would never have been straight ever again.
 
Mick West said:
That's why I like to stick to facts, and not argue over the meaning of words. If someone asks me "Can you prove that these details are not critical to NISTs analysis?" then they really need to phrases the question in a way that semantics does not come into it. (Although generally the answer to being asked if you can prove a negative is is "no").
Click to expand...
Yup, I agree, stick to the facts. Sometimes though, it is good to give people like NIST the benefit of the doubt in every way you can, which builds a redundancy into the argument being put here. For example, we have only so far considered beam expansion to happen in one direction, the one that favours NISTs hypothesis. But the fact of the matter is that the K3004 beam would initially expand in both directions, to the west, and also to the east, at least until it meets column 38. This means that the least distance additionally that you need it to expand over and above NISTs target of 6.25" is 0.5". So if someone came up with an expansion that justified NISTs original 5.5" expansion claim, they would actually need to find a minimum of 6" expansion. In reality probably closer to 7". So isn't it a fact that the beam would expand in BOTH directions?
 
gerrycan said:
For example, we have only so far considered beam expansion to happen in one direction, the one that favours NISTs hypothesis.
Click to expand...

More pertinent, you have only considered beam expansion.

There's a heck of a lot more to consider. Why not make a limited local model, heat it up, see what happens?
 
Mick West said:
More pertinent, you have only considered beam expansion.

There's a heck of a lot more to consider. Why not make a limited local model, heat it up, see what happens?
Click to expand...
So you haven't yet considered that the beam expands into column 38? Isn't that something that should now be addressed?
The fact that the girder would only need to expand 1.2 into the inside of the side plates on column 79 to get trapped is not something that has escaped attention. In that sense NIST are still getting the benefit of the doubt here, i admit. But I think for now, we should deal with one thing at a time and address the K3004 beam expanding into column 38 for a half inch and then some.
 
gerrycan said:
So you haven't yet considered that the beam expands into column 38? Isn't that something that should now be addressed?
The fact that the girder would only need to expand 1.2 into the inside of the side plates on column 79 to get trapped is not something that has escaped attention. In that sense NIST are still getting the benefit of the doubt here, i admit. But I think for now, we should deal with one thing at a time and address the K3004 beam expanding into column 38 for a half inch and then some.
Click to expand...

How can we deal with one thing at a time, when it did not happen one thing at a time?

Why don't you attempt to make a more accurate model?
 
Mick West said:
How can we deal with one thing at a time, when it did not happen one thing at a time?

Why don't you attempt to make a more accurate model?
Click to expand...
This thread is about errors and omissions in NISTs analysis. A potential one being their choosing to ignore that beams expand in directions that favour their hypothesis. This thread is not about other analysis, let's deal with NISTs here, and others elsewhere. That way we can focus and stick to pertinent facts.
 
gerrycan said:
This thread is about errors and omissions in NISTs analysis. A potential one being their choosing to ignore that beams expand in directions that favour their hypothesis. This thread is not about other analysis, let's deal with NISTs here, and others elsewhere. That way we can focus and stick to pertinent facts.
Click to expand...

Surely though a more accurate analysis would reveal errors in NIST's analysis? So it's incredibly pertinent.
 
I believe there is a thread that deals with other analysis nearby. Let's stick to the beam expanding into column 38 as well as pushing the girder here. We can get to the issues of other peoples FEAs elsewhere. (I hope)
 
Was that in your videos?

Speaking of which, are you going to issue a correction for the incorrect thermal expansion calculations this video?
 
Mick West said:
Was that in your videos?

Speak of which, are you going to issue a correction for the incorrect thermal expansion calculations this video?
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure you are dealing with that also in another thread. Let's stick to this beam here. I am happy for now, and for the purposes of this debate here if you want to claim that the expansion is 5.49 inches. Let's continue on that basis, and explore just how much the expansion into column 38 would decrease your 5.5 by. I say half an inch to start, so let's deal with that.
Do you think that the K3004 beam would expand in both directions?
Do you think that the beam would travel toward column 38?
If so by how much?
These questions are very relevant to this thread. I will allow you to start at 5.5" of expansion if that is what you are saying. That can be contested elsewhere in the relevant thread surely.
 
gerrycan said:
I am pretty sure you are dealing with that also in another thread. Let's stick to this beam here. I am happy for now, and for the purposes of this debate here if you want to claim that the expansion is 5.49 inches. Let's continue on that basis, and explore just how much the expansion into column 38 would decrease your 5.5 by. I say half an inch to start, so let's deal with that.
Do you think that the K3004 beam would expand in both directions?
Do you think that the beam would travel toward column 38?
If so by how much?
These questions are very relevant to this thread. I will allow you to start at 5.5" of expansion if that is what you are saying. That can be contested elsewhere in the relevant thread surely.
Click to expand...

Tony's already conceded the 5.5" point. Can we all agree that's valid first?

Why don't you just explain your C38 theory, with diagrams?
 
You have access to the same drawings, I will put something together at some point, but I am sure you can work it out for yourself rather than just take my word for it. If K3004 expands to the west, it must surely expand to the east also. So far we have only considered what happens at the west point of the beam. I am saying that it is time now to consider what happens at the other end. It decreases your alleged 5.5 (which i think is a stretch in and of itself) dramatically. You can argue your point with Tony, and as I have said, I am happy for the purposes of this debate to concede 5,5" of expansion, but let's consider both ends of the beam please. I would have thought that you would have looked into this by now. I mean why would you not want to do that? It's kinda an obvious thing to consider re this debate.
 
gerrycan said:
You have access to the same drawings, I will put something together at some point, but I am sure you can work it out for yourself rather than just take my word for it. If K3004 expands to the west, it must surely expand to the east also. So far we have only considered what happens at the west point of the beam. I am saying that it is time now to consider what happens at the other end. It decreases your alleged 5.5 (which i think is a stretch in and of itself) dramatically. You can argue your point with Tony, and as I have said, I am happy for the purposes of this debate to concede 5,5" of expansion, but let's consider both ends of the beam please. I would have thought that you would have looked into this by now. I mean why would you not want to do that? It's kinda an obvious thing to consider re this debate.
Click to expand...

I'm waiting for you to explain the point. I thought that the end was considered fixed, due to the moment resisting exterior frame. Presumably there's some detail in the connection? Why don't you just explain. I'm not going to look up something you can just explain.
 
I am just saying that if you are considering how much a beam expands, it is balanced to examine to what extent it expands in more than the one direction that favours NISTs hypothesis. I would think you were comfortable enough with the drawings by now to be able to examine this for yourself. The site doesn't seem to like tiffs, I will have a go tomorrow maybe.
 
Mick West said:
I've fixed it so you can upload .tiff and .tif files now
Click to expand...
Still not working. I gave you the link for the drawings right at the start. I'll convert it tomorrow and write out exactly what I mean. Would have been good to see what you came up with on your own though.
 
Mick West said:
Tony's already conceded the 5.5" point. Can we all agree that's valid first?

Why don't you just explain your C38 theory, with diagrams?
Click to expand...
I appreciate that you were right about the mean already being calculated in the CTE graph value and I corrected it in a spread sheet posted in the thread on expansion, as I am sure you are aware.

However, the 5.5" does not give the NIST report what it claims and is far from it in the overall situation as you have conceded, by acknowledging the girder would need to be pushed more than 8.00" to the west to fall off the seat.

I really do think the debate is over concerning the validity of the NIST WTC 7 collapse initiation analysis and NIST should come clean about those omitted girder stiffeners and beam stubs on G3005. NIST has been contacted several times in the last 18 months about these omissions and have not mentioned them in any responses to questions about them which also included other things, and they have not responded at all when the omissions were the only subject. I am sure the engineers and scientists at NIST are not responsible for the stonewalling on the issue of these omitted items.
 
Last edited:
If the debate is over then why are you still having a debate?

You just discovered a serious error in your calculations. Doesn't that make you at least want to go back and check your other work? What other assumptions might you have made that might be incorrect?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Y
Steven Greenstreet's Skinwalker Ranch Video Series
2
Replies
65
Views
10K
FatPhil
FatPhil
Mick West
Sean Kirkpatrick's Interview With Daniel Lavelle at The Guardian [Transcript]
Replies
26
Views
3K
MapperGuy
M
NorCal Dave
Claim: A UFO crashed in 1933 Italy and the US Recovered it
Replies
8
Views
3K
NorCal Dave
NorCal Dave
John J.
Is "Improved Instrumental Techniques...", Nolan, Vallee, Jiang, Lemke 2022 a useful paper?
2
Replies
45
Views
5K
Z.W. Wolf
Z.W. Wolf
NorCal Dave
Meta Materials From UFOs
2 3 4
Replies
134
Views
23K
Gary C
Gary C

Latest posts

Back
Top