So you think that the OIG will try to attack the messenger rather than address the content of the letter? Personally I think that will not be an option for them although it is a tactic that I would expect people to get away with in blogs and other online forums. In a way it reassures me when people are unable to pick holes in the evidence and have to resort to such logical fallacies. It shows the strength of the evidence.
The link ( http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2014JanLetterPepper.pdf ) details the most pertinent omissions in the NIST WTC7 report. Specifically, beam stubs, stiffener plates and other errors in the report. The common thread here is that the errors/omissions all would prevent the kind of failure mechanism that NIST supposed in their collapse initiating event for the building.
It's not a logical fallacy unless someone says 'because of this person's character and history, the information is false by default'.
Yeah, I was referring to the OIG possibly trying to attack Dr Pepper rather than addressing the contents of the letter. In that sense 'shooting the messenger' would be an extension of an ad homenim type logical fallacy.
That particular narrative being NIST's collapse hypothesis.
Of course they don't. If NIST got this wrong, and they did, they need to change that and give us an explanation that satisfies the scientific method.
Therefor so would NISTs be.
If NIST is not prepared to amend their report, they should be held accountable for that in a court IMO. It is crucial that we find out what exactly caused the unprecedented collapse of this building. Not to do so jeopardizes public safety.
Try and address the content then. Bring that on.
Not at all my bag of onions. They are threatening the lawsuit. Let them bring it on. Pass the popcorn!
This is not a show for your entertainment AE. It is a potential court case re the filing of a false report pertaining to an attack that killed many of your fellow citizens and facilitated wars that killed many more. Your attitude says much.
I beg to differ. AE911Truth have been overselling their conspiracy claptrap for too many years already. I'd like to see them get their day in court, and be exposed for what they are. I would be entertained by it, as I do not respect the organization. After all, they're accusing innocent Americans of heinous crimes, based on a stubborn refusal to accept basic facts, and paranoid speculation. They denigrate any person or organization who doesn't sing from the conspiracy songsheet so deserve the same in return.
This also says much, in that we all seem to use this topic as a launching pad to 'say much' about our fellow citizens.
So, you read the pdf?I fully expect both
NIST are in possession of information which they should take into account re the WTC7 report. They have failed to do so. Hopefully the OIG will compel them to do that. If not, I would like to see them in court for filing a false report
of course
I honestly don't know whether this would be a willful deception, or an honest mistake. What I can say is that all of the errors and omissions made the initiating event that NIST supposed look more credible. The beam stubs, the stiffener plates and all the other errors and omissions that they made allowed their conclusions to look more plausible. As soon as the structural drawings were made public, these were picked up on, and the fact that NIST had these drawings that contradicted the connection and elements around column 79 as per their report is something that needs to be remedied.
There certainly are, yes.
NISTs analysis is based on an inaccurate representation of the structural drawings, for example drawing '9114' which clearly show stiffener plates on the girder. The analysis that we have done and the conclusions we have reached are based on the structural drawings for the building that NIST say they used.
Yes, we have demonstrated that clearly. The plates allow for greater transfer of load across the bottom flange of the girder. Given that the maximum expansion of the beams to the east of it is 5.5", and the seat plate is actually 12" and not 11" as stated by NIST, the improbable becomes the impossible, in terms of the ability of thermal expansion of the long span floor beams to puh the girder off it's seat.
Yes. If NISTs supposed initiating event is not valid, then the cause of the buildings failure is not as they described it in the report.
We are dealing with the initiating event here, and that has been invalidated. As puzzling as the admitted 108ft of freefall acceleration exhibited in the collapse is, we must deal with what caused the building to begin to collapse in order to understand the cause and learn more about how to prevent this type of failure recurring.
Wise move, neither would I lol.
Well, NIST also omitted beam stubs to the North of column 79 and East of column 44. These would prevent the type of twisting you are alluding to.
Ok, i see what you are getting at. The maximum expansion would be 5.5". The seat plate is 12", so the girder web would still be over the seat plate. The finite element analysis shows that even at up to 8.75 inches movement, the girder would remain supported by the seat plate. NIST stated that above 600C the beams would stop expanding and begin to sag, having lost the tensile strength required to push the girder.
Actually 5.5" as per NISTs original estimate, where they failed to read correctly from the bill of materials that the seat plate was actually 1ft. Still, i suppose they did kind of address this, even though this dug a bigger hole for their story.
